Talk:Dingo/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Dingo. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Dingo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Dingo speciation as written in the paragraph "DNA Analysis"

The last sentence of this paragraph (DNA Analysis) is inaccurate as far as the "official" taxonomic classification of the Dingo. The reference for the statement "...with the Dingo appearing to have no ancestral relationship with the wolf. Dr. Mathew Crowther...using specimens collected at the end of the 19th century..." at the end of this heading (DNA Analysis) is a newspaper article which breezily sums up Dr. Crowther's HYPOTHESIS about Dingo speciation. Wikipedia's own articles on dog/wolf speciation and on taxonomy contradict all his assertions. Dingoes in fact are freely and easily breeding with dogs (Canis Lupus Familiaris) and in fact this is the reason for Crowther's hypothesis- if dingoes are a separate species they can be legally protected. The article describes Dr. Crowther observing visually 19th century specimens for his speciation hypothesis- the genetics of this question are pretty much resolved- just follow Wikipedia's own articles on Subspecies of the Wolf and Domestication of the Dog. I believe the last paragraph should be qualified as conjecture. Makumbe (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The reference for the statement "...with the Dingo appearing to have no ancestral relationship with the wolf. Dr. Mathew Crowther...using specimens collected at the end of the 19th century..." at the end of this heading (DNA Analysis) is a newspaper article which breezily sums up Dr. Crowther's HYPOTHESIS about Dingo speciation. Other  Australian scientists call Crowther's methodology "weak" and his data "unconvincing.^[1] .  Dingoes in fact are freely and easily breeding with dogs (Canis Lupus Familiaris) and in this may be the reason for Crowther's hypothesis- if dingoes are a separate species they can be legally protected. This can be seen in this article: ^[2] and this article: ^[3] . Dr. Crowther used observations of 19th century specimens for his speciation hypothesis- he says that dingoes "... appear not to be descended from wolves..." ^[4]  however it is not clear how his observations changed the already agreed upon taxonomy of the dingo. ^[5]   Makumbe (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't add extra headers to continue the same discussion. As for the actual passage, Wikipedia is not here to publish conclusions you have made based on the article content, but to report conclusions previously published elsewhere. See WP:SYNTH. If you can find a reliable source that rebuts these conclusions, then by all means add it. But without sources, it is not appropriate to include. oknazevad (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Taxobox with "var." stipulation

Dingo

Australian dingo
Conservation status
Vulnerable (IUCN 3.1)^[1]
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Order:	Carnivora
Family:	Canidae
Genus:	Canis
Species:	Canis lupus
Subspecies:	C. lupus dingo (var.)
Trinomial name
*Canis lupus dingo (Var.)* (Meyer, 1793)

Australian Dingo range
Synonyms^[2]
antarcticus (Kerr, 1792), Canis australasiae (Desmarest, 1820), Canis australiae (Gray, 1826), Canis dingoides (Matschie, 1915), Canis macdonnellensis (Matschie, 1915), Canis novaehollandiae (Voigt, 1831),

Cultural impact

External links modified

Page protection

Using a modified Infobox dog breed template instead of Taxobox

This article, as it is currently defined, is about the Australian dingo, not the taxon dingo. We have the article Dingo (taxon) for the taxon (which includes things besides the Australian dingo, like the New Guinea singing dog). Using the Taxobox template here is confusing, as it suggests to the reader (and many editors) that this article is about the entire taxon (which it isn't). This confusion has led to various failed proposals like moving the article to "Australian dingo" (which violates WP:COMMONNAME) or adding "(var.)" to the taxobox (which just makes it more confusing). While there is some debate about whether the Australian dingo should be considered a breed in the strict sense, it is recognized as such by the Australian National Kennel Council (ANKC) and the American Rare Breed Association (ARBA) and there is a published breed standard. By switching to {{Infobox dog breed}}, we could better focus this article specifically on the Australian dingo and prevent confusion with Dingo (taxon). Currently {{Infobox dog breed}} supports both domesticated breeds and hybrid wild x domesticated breeds (via the x parameter). It would be fairly easy to extend it to support wild breeds as well (such as dingos and New Guinea singing dogs). If there is support for such a proposal, I would be happy to make the necessary changes to the template. Kaldari (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Chrisrus, William Harris, Gnangarra, and Oknazevad: Opinions? Kaldari (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Kaldari. Chrisrus has been offline for a month now (I hope that he is OK), which brings the invited editors likely to respond to your ping down to O, G and me. Your logic is: because the Australian dingo is recognized as a dog breed by the Australian National Kennel Council, then this article should provide a dog breed template. I have thought about this issue before, and my response is as follows based in what we know found in the "Taxonomy" and "Lineage" sections of the article: the Australian dingo is a separate species Canis dingo according to the ICZN from 1957; it falls within a larger grouping within this region called Canis lupus dingo according to MSW3 (but Wozencraft went out on a limb in doing so and has been rebutted by other authors); the dingo falls within the "domestic dog clade" along with Canis familiaris (or Canis lupus familiaris) according to Wozencraft; the dingo falls within the "dog" mitochondrial DNA grouping (which still does not dispute that phenotypically it is still a separate species, with Debula 2015 arguing that a few more types of "dogs" should also be separate species, the African basenji coming to mind straight away); the Dingo is recognized as a dog breed by the ANKC which, in true Aussie fashion, did not overly concern itself with debates about taxonomic classification among experts. From my understanding of the dog breed infobox, it is preset for Canis lupus familiaris. Based on what we know from above, that would be incorrect, would it not? What the taxobox should be in this article is a species box based on the ICZN ruling, thanks for raising this point, and we should await the response of others to see what they think. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 20:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@William Harris: As I mentioned above, the dog breed infobox is not exclusively for Canis lupus familiaris (although that is the default). It can easily be modified to support other species or subspecies. (The basenji, which you mention, also uses {{Infobox dog breed}}, although it is more domesticated than the dingo.) Regarding the taxonomy, I really don't think we are going to reach consensus on classifying the Australian dingo and other primitive breeds as separate species as there currently isn't consensus for this in the sources and we would have to significantly change a lot of dog taxon articles on Wikipedia (See Subspecies of Canis lupus). It's also not clear what would happen with Dingo (taxon). If the Australian dingo is a species, what does that make the clade that includes Australian dingos, New Guinea singing dogs, Papuan dogs, etc.? A genus? The decision of where to rank dingos is largely arbitrary (as zoologists will never agree on a consistent definition of "species"). By using the breed infobox, we can avoid taking a stand on the issue and just describe the taxonomy issues in the text. Kaldari (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what zoologists think or what they might believe. The ICZN ruling is clear and that was the committee's consensus. If someone thinks the dingo is not a separate species, they should feel free to make a formal proposal to the ICZN. However, if that proposal should be based on a bunch of evolutionary biologists chasing phylogenetic "ghosts" in statistical models predicated on short sequences of DNA, then I would suggest that proposal will be rejected as was such a proposal in 1982. Until we find the fossil remains of the common ancestor of both extant wolves and dogs (of which the dingo is in my opinion - it should join the familiaris pack), there will be no change in the ruling. However, I take your point that the taxobox could be amended and I find your argument persuasive - would you like to do a mockup in your sandbox? (If there is some agreement by others, it could then be dropped into my sandbox for other editors to look at - my sandbox is open the world.) We await input from the rest of the "dingo pack". More specifically, Gnangarra should be coming online from Perth shortly, however O is in North America (east coast I assume from his edit record) and we will need to wait overnight for his opinion. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 04:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC) (Adelaide)

Statement by William Harris:

I take responsible for recently updating the content that forms the "Etymology", "Taxonomy" and "Lineage" sections of the dingo article
I understand that the "Taxonomy" and "Lineage" sections are controversial - much of what I do here on Wikipedia relating to wolves and the dog ancestor is controversial
I did add to the first sentence of the article the term Canis dingo, with citations, to the Canis lupus dingo that was already there
Another editor removed Canis lupus dingo from the first sentence and no other editor challenged it - I have no position on that
I did not amend the taxobox based on the updated Taxonomy section - I simply stated the facts as I found them, and left this matter for others to form an opinion on or to action
We should now consider the type and content of the taxobox, as suggested by editor Kaldari

Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 04:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for everything, William.

I should start by saying that the taxonomy of the Dingo is a matter of convention and point of view rather than merely scientific fact.

I donno about that lead as it stands. Is Canis dingo really in use? It seems to me that experts haven't much called it that in some time.

The dingo might be legitimately seen as a subspecies of the dogs type, but then again, so could the spaniel.

I don't think "Canis dingo" has been much in use for some time. Recently as I recall a very high authority in Australian mammology did a survey of Australian mammals and stated clearly that they consider dingo to be an invalid taxon for their purposes. They thought it sub-subspecific, a type of the domestic dog subspecies of the wolf species of the canis type of the dog family of carnivorans. These things are in the end quite arbitrary.

Look how they do it at domestic pig. They have it as both or either a subspecies of wild boar and/or a species of the pig type.

These things should reflect a good summary of expert consensus, with minimal editorial judgement on our part as a possible.

To decide, we need to do a good summary of modern expert usage. If both appear, we should do it like pig.

Only in that sense can we rightly say that we report a matter of fact about expert conventions, and not worry about who is right and who is wrong because no one and everyone is. It depends on how you look at it. Chrisrus (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chris, glad to see that you back again, if only briefly. Are we to overlook a formal ruling by the ICZN and their Official List? Wozencraft did, and has had nothing but grief from other experts since. The ICZN has no coercive powers but they do expect mammologists to abide by their rulings. Once you begin to venture away from these then you are rejecting the rules and you find yourself in taxonomic difficulties. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 07:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I do think we have to. Their conclusion, as much as it is one, is exactly the same as had been rejected multiple times previously. Frankly, the situation of dingo taxonomy remains a controversial one, ith neither side representing a WP:FRINGE position. For NPOV sake, the idea of following the model of pig makes sense to me. Don't draw a conclusion, but state the major, non-fringe positions and state flatly that there's disagreement. Because there is. oknazevad (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The Taxonomy section clearly shows that there is disagreement by a number of parties proposing various names. Nonetheless, none of them - not one - has expressed the courage of their convictions and made a formal proposal for a taxonomic reclassification to the ICZN. There should be an international body to adjudicate on such matters - and there is! Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 06:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt but the article being referred to is domestic pig, not pig. Domestic pig is an example of an article that frankly admits in an upfront and clear way that more than one taxonomy is in use, saying "The domestic pig (Sus scrofa domesticus or Sus domesticus), ..." Chrisrus (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That is how I had originally set up the first sentence of this artice to read - Canis dingo (with citations) or Canis lupus dingo (with citations). However, someone deleted Canis lupus dingo and someone will always delete it at some time, because Canis dingo is its official name - that is a fact. What it might be is conjecture and debate. As interesting as this discussion is, a decision needs to be made to support User:Kaldari and a choice of taxobox. What will that box say - that is all that needs to be decided here. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 21:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@William Harris: The ICZN is not an authority on taxonomy. They are an authority on nomenclature, i.e. naming of taxons.

I trust that you understand the difference between the two. Simply put: nomenclature (from the Latin: name) is about naming things, taxonomy is about identifying a bone in the field as being one of them. The two disciplines cross over on the original type specimen. Here on Wikipedia, there is a tendency to use the term "taxonomy" when we are talking about nomenclature. Ideally, the "taxonomy" section of an article would include the "description" sub-section, and that would describe the "type specimen". So far you have told us that the ICZN is the expert on names.

As the ICZN Code states: "The Code refrains from infringing upon taxonomic judgment, which must not be made subject to regulation or restraint. Nomenclature does not determine the inclusiveness or exclusiveness of any taxon, nor the rank to be accorded to any assemblage of animals, but rather provides the name that is to be used for a taxon whatever taxonomic limits and rank are given to it."

I am fairly clear on what it does:

Article 1. Definition and scope.

1.1. Definition. Zoological nomenclature is the system of scientific names applied to taxonomic units (taxa; singular: taxon) of extant or extinct animals.

1.2. Scope.

1.2.1. The scientific names of extant or extinct animals include names based on domesticated animals, names based on fossils that are substitutions (replacements, impressions, moulds and casts) for the actual remains of animals, names based on the fossilized work of organisms (ichnotaxa), and names established for collective groups (see, in particular, Articles 10.3, 13.3.2, 23.7, 42.2.1, 66.1, 67.14), as well as names proposed before 1931 based on the work of extant animals.

1.2.2. The Code regulates the names of taxa in the family group, genus group, and species group.

The ICZN decision from 1957 determined that the taxon name Canis dingo could be preserved even though Canis antarticus had seniority as an older name. The decision had no bearing on whether dingos were actually a species or not. It was purely a decision about which name had priority.

It was a decision about the name of the taxon. It was then entered onto the ICZN Official List as an available name:

"Available name - A scientific name applied to an animal taxon that is not excluded under Article 1.3 and that conforms to the provisions of Articles 10 to 20." (Glossary, INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE)

I wasn't able to find any information on the 1982 application rejection (after searching through all issues of the ICZN bulletin from 1982-1984) and combing through Google Books, so I'm not sure what the ICZN actually stated in that case, if anything.

The application was rejected - it never got to the ICZN for an opinion. I assume that it did not meet the requirements:

Article 79. List of Available Names in Zoology. An international body of zoologists (such as an International Congress, an international society, or a consortium of national or regional societies, or a Scientific Member of the International Union of Biological Sciences) in consultation with the Commission may propose that the Commission adopt for a major taxonomic field (or related fields) a Part of the List of Available Names in Zoology. The Commission will consider the proposal and may adopt the Part subject to the proposing body and the Commission meeting the requirements of this Article.

My understanding of the 2003 ruling is that the ICZN stated that the name Canis lupus was preserved in favor of Canis familiaris even though Canis familiaris has page priority (which only matters for dingos if you consider them a subspecies of Canis lupus/Canis familiaris). This was also a decision specifically about name priority, not taxonomy.

I entirely agree with you. However, Wozencraft then used that ruling to base his classification on, with the extension that a domestic form could be a subspecies. This is where the criticism begins. So far, you are still with Canis dingo being the correct name.

There is no reason to make any decisions about taxonomy based on ICZN rulings. Taxonomy should be based on the consensus of current scientific sources.

Only we are not talking about taxonomy, we are talking about a species NAME = nomenclature. We have a body that deals in this. Researchers and taxonomists can come up with their own names as long as these follow the ICZN rules. However, once the ICZN is asked to give an opinion, that name enters onto the Official List.

The guidelines at WikiProject Mammals say to default to MSW on matters of taxonomy unless secondary sources widely disagree with it.

I entirely agree with you, and I am a member of WPM and was instrumental in getting that put onto the Project page (and it was a lot harder task than you would believe). It flows down from a conversation I had on WikiProject Tree of Life. You will note the "secondary sources widely disagree" - they do and these are cited in the article.

According to MSW, there is no taxon for Australian dingos.

Wozencraft begs to differ: "dingo Meyer, 1793 [domestic dog]; antarticus Kerr, 1792 [suppressed, ICZN, O.451]; australasiae Desmarest, 1820; australiae Gray, 1826; dingoides Matschie, 1915; macdonnellensis Matschie..."

Rather they are a part of the subspecies Canis lupus dingo

The taxa listed do not simply "cease to exist", they have been made synonymous with Cld according to Wozencraft, which is disputed by other and more recent experts. And now we find that the dingo population is genetically split into two populations - it may only be a matter of time before some of these taxa are brought back into separate being again.

(which is covered at dingo (taxon)).

The article Dingo (taxon) was originally named Canis lupus dingo when I commenced redeveloping it. Another editor moved it under the title of Dingo (taxon), which is technically only dingo Meyer, 1793."

Thus I don't think it makes sense to have a taxobox on this article. By using {{Infobox dog breed}} (with some minor modification) instead, we can both conform to the guidelines and avoid the whole taxonomy debate (at least more so than the article does currently).

I agree with you, but I believe that other editors need to consider whether the last line of the template should read "Domestic dog (Canis dingo)". "Domestic dog" was the term Wozencraft used for Canis dingo under Cld. (This is why I had said earlier that I have no real opinion on the taxobox of this article nor the taxobox's content, and was happy to leave it to others. My point was based on what the taxobox was to read. It needed to state something, and we needed to reflect the official name somewhere in that, preferably. I also stated earlier that in my opinion the dingo was a dog, as it falls within Clade A of the mitochondrial phylogeny of dogs and wolves. However, species classification is not based on genotype - else we are all in for a very "Brave New World".)

If you are still interested in classifying Australian dingos as a separate species, please make that into a separate proposal.

No need for that, it was done by Meyer in 1793 and supported by Opinion 451 of the ICZN. You cannot change history through a vote of Wikipedia editors - you can only change what Wikipedia says.

Also, I have to disagree with your statement that Canis dingo is the "official name" for Australian dingos. It is a "valid" name (according to the ICZN). In other words, it is a name that can be applied to the taxon without breaking the Code of the ICZN (which wasn't the case before the 1957 ruling). There is no "official name" as the ICZN does not make decisions about taxonomy. Kaldari (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The name dingo broke no ICZN code before 1957. The ICZN was asked to rule on the name of the dingo, and it did. Once again, this is about the name of a species, it is not "taxonomy". You may very well disagree, however there are credible secondary sources that state otherwise. If you can find a secondary source that states that the ICZN ruling was not about the specific name of the dingo, I will be more than pleased to reflect that in the article. This article is about the dingo (and more specifically, the Australian dingo.) Its current scientific name is Canis dingo. (And I used to be one of the biggest doubters of that; a little research changed my point of view.)

As I suggested before, why don't you do a mockup of the breed-box and drop it into my Sandbox so others can look at it and know exactly what you are describing? It would be good to be able to assess its potential "longevity" in the Dingo article. Rest assured, if the Aussies don't like it, then it will not last long. There have been 34 editors following this thread and they will form their own opinions. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@William Harris:

>The name dingo broke no ICZN code before 1957.

I'm afraid that isn't accurate. Before the ICZN ruling in 1957, the name Canis dingo was not a valid name for any animal taxon per Article 23 of the ICZN. It may have been used widely, but it wasn't "valid".

>The ICZN was asked to rule on the name of the dingo, and it did.

The ICZN was asked to suppress the name Canis antarticus (which had priority), in favor of Canis dingo, and they did so. At the time, there were no disputes about the taxon's rank or what the taxon included. The only dispute was which name had priority. The ICZN decision had no bearing on the taxon's rank and is, in fact, still a completely valid decision. If the dingo taxon is ever raised back to the rank of species, its valid name will be Canis dingo. Since 1957, the taxonomy of dogs has changed significantly, and the current consensus (according to MSW3, which is considered an authoritative source for Wikipedia) is that dingos are actually a subspecies of Canis lupus. Due to the ICZN decision, the name of the subspecies is Canis lupus dingo rather than Canis lupus antarticus. Nothing about that is incompatible with the ICZN decision (as the ICZN is neutral on matters of taxonomy). The reason this is confusing is that species and subspecies names combine information about rank and nomenclature. ICZN decisions, though, only have bearing on nomenclature, not rank or scope. Hope that makes sense.

>As I suggested before, why don't you do a mockup of the breed-box and drop it into my Sandbox

Good idea. I'll try to do that soon. Kaldari (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Requested move 19 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Dingo → Australian dingoAustralian dingo – This article only describes Australian dingoes, all dingoes are described in Canis lupus dingo, which should actually hold the name "dingo." Editor abcdef (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This page has been moved back and forth between [Australian dingo] and Dingo at least a couple of times. See the edit history of November 29, 2010 and then also June 7, 2010. It might be worthwhile to look at the Talk pages of around this time. I am not suggesting we should accept without question what other editors have said previously - things evolve. But, it might be useful to see what others have said.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Support, but this should've been one multi-move request. Red Slash 03:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
NOTE see highly intertwined move request at talk:Canis lupus dingo which is reliant on this move succeeding -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. The Australian dingo is the primary meaning. Srnec (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per User:Chrisrus's comment here and User:Srnec's above. — AjaxSmack 05:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Let mammologists call such exotic dogs as Talomians and New Guinea Singing dogs, and the even ordinary street dogs of Thailand, "Canis lupus dingo" without us implying that their doing so is more than just a convenient taxon named after its most famous member, the Australian dingo, and not meant to imply that they are "dingoes" in the ordinary sense of the word. Chrisrus (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per Chrisrus. oknazevad (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revisit

Terribly sorry but if I just may re-visit this topic:

This article should be about the Australian dingo. That is all.

That's more than enough work for this article and plenty for a fine article. It's the likely primary intended target of "d-i-n-g-o" searchers. And it's the most current expert taxonomy.

Please let's keep the non-Australian animals to a minimum. That's what dingo (taxon) is for. That article just mentions this referent and links to it and then adds in the NGSD, the Thai pariah dog, the Telomian and so on, the whole clade of animals history dating back to China. None of that stuff should be here in this article.

This article should only mention and link to dingo (taxon). That can be a good article but it's not the same referent. It's much bigger.

So Proposal:

1. Redirect dingo to Australian dingo. This brings all "d-i-n-g-o" searchers here.

2. Move this article to Australian dingo. This focuses and disambiguates.

3. Let dingo (taxon) keep the non-Australian animals some of which are sometimes also called dingoes" 0r dingo, but which are not the same as this dingo, just named after it sometimes.

It's confusing otherwise. Chrisrus (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. "Dingo" means the Australian animal to the vast majority of the public, including most zoologists. The (not entirely accepted) use of it to describe other wild (or near wild) dogs is, as I said, not entirely widely accepted, and outside the common understanding of the term. A hatnote to dingo (taxon) is all that's needed. Especially since the taxon is fairly controversial in its scope, with no full agreement as to what dogs belong in it, and with those dogs being known by other, more specific names. It's a case of trying to disambiguate when there's a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. oknazevad (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's not a counterpoint. dingo (taxon) already exists, that's not part of the proposal. If you think it should be deleted there should be a place for that discussion. This is about that we take all the stuff about non-Austrialian animals "dingo clade" referents out of this article and move it there where they belong and then free this article to be what it should be, just about the Australian dingo. Chrisrus (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  - Who said anything about deleting dingo (taxon)? I sure didn't. I agree that that article is the appropriate place for any discussion about the use of the term "dingo" as a taxonomic term, with discussion about why it may or may not be a separate whatever, what animals are included in it by what scientists, and why they make that inclusion. And I agree that that material belongs there and not in this article, outside of maybe a passing mention with a pointer link. But what I disagree with is moving this article as it doesn't need a disambiguated title as it is the clear primary topic. oknazevad (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    - Yes, it is the primary topic. That's the point. All "d-i-n-g-o" searchers are directed to Australian dingo. Then there're links to dingo (disambiguation) and dingo (taxon) when disambiguation is needed. Chrisrus (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

primary topic means we dont send them to another name, they land on the name they are searching for. Gnan garra 07:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not true. Look at Soccer, for example. Chrisrus (talk) 07:44 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That's needed because of dialect differences, so they get a longer, more technical title. That's not needed here. oknazevad (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It's needed for a different reason, to keep the referent Australian. I brought up that article to prove moving an article to a more precise title doesn't imply that it's not the primary topic of another: just because the article about soccer/dingo sits at association football/Australian dingo doesn't imply that the former isn't the primary topic for that term. Chrisrus (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose the WP:Primary topic is about the Australian dog, even Dingo (taxon) opens by stating Dingo always refers to the Australian Dingo. The taxon is of issue not everyone agrees on canine lupis dingo recent research suggest canine dingo for the australian animal based on recent DNA test and studies of only early settlement specimens and indigenous writings which predate the current major theories. Gnan garra 07:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not a counterpoint. "d-i-n-g-o" searchers be sent to Australian dingo as per WP:PRIMARYTOPC. The primary topic is supported by moving all non-primary topic "dingoes" out of this article, which is reserved for the primary one, the Australian one. Chrisrus (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

the primary topic A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term and the dingo is exactly what people are searching for with respect to other names they are not dingos and they are not what people are looking for searching for a dingo. There is no reason to redirect dingo to Australian Dingo because that is also no the name by which the animal is known either. Article content is another issue and yes superfluous information about the other animals should be removed and a hat note should direct them to Dingo(disambiguation) where dingo (taxon), Dingo (machine), Dingo Flour should be. Dingo (taxon) should actually be at the scientific Canis lupus dingo Gnan garra 12:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That the primary topic of the word "dingo" is the Australian one is the point. This article is confused. It contains information about secondary topics. That this topic is the primary topic is the reason it should be moved to Australian dingo: to keep it on the primary topic. Chrisrus (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in this discussion disagrees that the primary topic of "dingo" is the Australian animal. Why do you keep repeating that?

Honestly, I'm genuinely quite confused here by your posts, Chris. I think you're misunderstanding what we mean when we say "primary topic". We are talking about what the article should be titled, not a discussion about the article scope. We all agree that this article should be about the Australian wild dog, and that non-Australian material should be reduced to a passing mention; the separate dingo (taxon) article is the proper place for coverage of use of the term other than for the Australian dog.

But there's absolutely no need to make the title of this article Australian dingo. That would be unnecessary disambiguation for the article covering the primary topic of the word "dingo".

Let's put it another way. Say we move this article to Australian dingo, and dingo points to this article as a redirect. Well, we're clearly saying that "dingo" means "Australian dingo" in almost every use (that's why the redirect would point that way), so why bother with the longer title when we can just put the article at the shorter one we are already saying means the same thing?

So, to summarize for clarity: I agree that the Australian wild dog is the primary meaning of the term "dingo". I agree that the article gives too much space to discussing the minority taxonomic use of the term, which belongs at dingo (taxon). I disagree strongly that we need to move this article to the longer "Australian dingo" title, as it would be an unneeded level of disambiguation, being that "dingo" would still point to the article. oknazevad (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a need: to precisely limit the nature and scope, as per WP:PRECISION. Doing so will get and keep info about other "dingoes" out. Otherwise, info about other "dingoes" will be harder to get out and will keep getting added and this article will keep being problematic.

Doing this does not imply that the Australian native dog is not the primary meaning of the word "dingo". As per WP:PRIMARY, as long as we direct all "d-i-n-g-o" searchers here, and have this referent the primary on the disambiguation page, we imply that this is the primary referent for the word. For example, titling it Association football doesn't mean that that term is the primary one for soccer, or that "soccer" isn't the primary meaning of the word "football". Chrisrus (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need to use an overly precise title to ensure scope, so long as a hatnote exists to point to the (taxon) article, which will help keep the scope clear. To almost everyone, including most zoologists, "dingo" = "Australian dingo", and the shorter title is better. oknazevad (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC) PS, I adjusted the indent level back down to where I had set it, as my previous post was all one response and a complete thought as one response; it shouldn't be split like that.

If that were true, there wouldn't be all this info about non-Australian "dingoes" in this article right now. Chrisrus (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

there isnt now, most of it was in the lead rather than the article body over all no substantive content relating to anything other than the australian Dingo, and one duplicated distribution map showing other nondingo dogs. Gnan garra 10:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

There is now. You seem to acknowledge that by saying "most", implying "not all". If you scroll down you'll find more. And you acknowledged the map, so there is now.

But even if we get them all out, moving this to Australian dingo keeps them out. Chrisrus (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

there was no substantive content, the content rferring to something other than dingos was in the lead except a ditrubiton map the included other non dingos found outside Australia. Gnan garra 13:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Native status

The sentence "The dingo is..."

DINGO - Conflicting statements in Description

Subspecies or species

Now I have no proof if this is true or not but a friend told me that recently, the Australian dingo has been classified as its own species. Also at the top of the page you can clearly see that there are a lot more sources saying that the scientific name is Canis dingo and not canis lupus dingo TheUnMaskedEditor (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

If you have no proof, then there is no place for this on Wikipedia - any changes you make need to WP:CITE expert WP:RELIABLE sources which other editors can WP:VERIFY. The classification is debated - please read Dingo#Taxonomic debate. There are many sources that quote Wozencraft's classification of Canis lupus dingo, and these cannot be numbered. We need to maintain a neutral point of view WP:NPOV as I had requested on your User talk:TheUnMaskedEditor#Dingo on 20 January. If you do not revert your own edits, then I will simply leave them. Shortly, some other editor will delete Canis dingo and replace it with either Canis lupus dingo or a breed of the domestic dog. I have been associated with this page for a long time and have seen this happen before, on numerous occasions. Your call. William Harris • (talk) • 08:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that information is outdated. I have found proof right here: http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/wildlife/2014/04/dingo-declared-a-separate-species TheUnMaskedEditor (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that information is outdated. I have found proof right here: http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/wildlife/2014/04/dingo-declared-a-separate-species TheUnMaskedEditor (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Clearly you have not bothered to read Dingo#Taxonomic debate as I recommended. All that you have provided is a proposal that forms one side in a debate. This matter is debated, and that is why there are two entries for its taxonomy. William Harris • (talk) • 06:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually now 4 :) Tony 1212 (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes T, things have progressed since February, thanks to your guidance. William Harris • (talk) • 09:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Dingo reclassified in 2014 after genome sequenced

"Feral" vs "wild"

Addressing the edit war developing on this issue - To me, a feral animal is one which themselves or whose ancestors were once domesticated, i.e. bred for human use, but which is now uncontrolled. It has clear negative connotations. The dingo does not fit this description. The article itself says it "has not been selectively bred as have other domesticated animals". It was never restrained by Aboriginal people. A cooperative arrangement developed, but to call those not living with people feral seems a long stretch to me. And what about those currently living with people? They simply cannot be described as feral. Is there anything conclusive in the sources? HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The second sentence in the last paragraph of the "Lineage" section states "Therefore, the dingo is not a "wild dog" but a domesticated dog that has gone feral," i.e., in direct reference to how dingoes are descended from domesticated dogs brought over by early Aboriginal peoples emigrating into Australia. To state otherwise would be to introduce contradiction.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You ignored big parts of my post. "Feral" has clear negative connotations. And what about those currently living with people? They cannot be described as feral. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on the negative connotations of "feral" and explain how and why the existence of these negative connotations explicitly forbid the use of "feral" under all circumstances even those situations that aren't explicitly negative, then, i.e., using the word to describe a population of wild animals that are demonstratively descended from a population of domesticated animals? That, and why would a few specific individuals, i.e., those dingoes in captivity also explicitly forbid the use of the word "feral" to describe dingoes as a whole? Would you also argue that we can not use the term "carnivore" to describe cats because a few cats are documented eating corn, broccoli and watermelon?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Have a look at the definition for "feral" here - https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/feral. It is full of mentions of the word's pejorative usage. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Then can you elaborate on how, even though the article ostensibly uses one of the non-perjorative definitions of "feral," the fact that the word has perjorative usage means that we can never ever ever use "feral" under any circumstances ever?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation of what I have said. Not helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

But repeatedly ignoring and invalidating my pointing out that the article is not using the term "feral" in a pejorative context is helpful? Or deliberately ignoring the fact that a few dingoes living in captivity or (semi)domestication does not forbid the usage of "feral" to describe dingoes as a whole? Is that helpful?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I have not used the word "forbid". I am simply debating a choice of words. Please stop misrepresenting me. HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

In case it helps, the cited paper by Freedman et al., 2014 (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016) uses the phrase "semi-feral" to describe the dingo: "Dingoes are free-living semi-feral dogs of Australia". Tony 1212 (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

And Free-ranging dog#Feral versus wild discusses this very distinction, coming down on the side of "wild" for the dingo. With good reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The matter is very simple. What do the expert secondary cited references say? Take a look at who "Jackson 2017" is - representatives from the University of NSW, the Smithsonian, the University of Canberra, the National Museum, the Government of NSW, the Australian Research Council, the University of South Australia etc etc. This is the Australian academic national consensus - what individuals think, or their perceptions of what "feral" or "wild" might be, is irrelevant. As for the Wikipedia article Free-ranging dog, it needs to be deleted - much of what it contains has now been rebutted by Miklosi in his book Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition second edition. It is an article still living in the 1980s and is still rated at Quality=Start class; Dingo is rated Quality=C class and is on its way towards B class. William Harris • (talk) • 09:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That "feral" has negative connotations is completely beside the point, since there is technical meaning, which is in use here. The same goes for, e.g, "retarded" - colloquial derogatory meanings do not invalidate a technical term. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, you're quite wrong there. "Retarded" simply is not used to scientifically or medically describe people these days. Any thoughts on Free-ranging dog#Feral versus wild? It's sourced. HiLo48 (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about - the term is used in many disciplines, and you are aware of only one single meaning. Same problem as the one you are apparently having with "feral". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It is WP:PRIMARY sourced to a no-name academic located in the centre of the US back in 2009. Compare this to WP:SECONDARY sourcing from a group of Australian academics that have devoted their lives to working with and studying dingoes, written in 2017. This includes Jackson & Groves, who wrote the bible: Taxonomy of Australian Mammals. Any thoughts on Jackson 2017? William Harris • (talk) • 10:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It's wrong. The label "academic" does not scare me. HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Good luck with that. William Harris • (talk) • 10:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't appreciate bullying style posts. They tend to be less convincing than polite ones that consider all that others have said. It's completely inappropriate to parcel dingoes with feral goats, feral pigs, etc. That makes no sense. HiLo48 (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The label "academic" is something that carries weight on WP, and the sentiment "it's wrong" is not. Hence, yeah, good luck with that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

People who discuss the way you do tend to further convince me I am right. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet, ignoring and invalidating what other people said because they aren't polite, and or polite enough to agree with you tends to not gain consensus, either. I mean, it's been explained that "feral" is being used to describe dingoes in the sense that they are descended from domesticated dogs that escaped into the Australian wilds thousands of years ago, but you keep insisting it's wrong and nonsensical to do so. Why? Dingoes aren't being described as rabid or uncouth barbarians in the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

But that's precisely what the word means in common Australian English. I find the argument in Free-ranging dog#Feral versus wild convincing, and it better matches the language I am familiar with in discussions about dingoes in the bush. It says "Australian dingoes are considered 'wild animals' rather than 'feral' to the extent to which they are not 'commensal': dependent on handouts and cast-offs from humans; and instead hunt and scavenge in the wild." HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

How can the dingo be both native and feral?

It makes no sense at all. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A) Because they were introduced thousands of years ago by humans and have successfully integrated themselves into many Australian ecosystems, and b) we have RELIABLE SOURCES corroborating the use of the descriptor "feral" to describe dingoes. Unless, of course, you can explain how your disbelief negates a) and b).--Mr Fink (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

You have failed to address my first comment. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

And your ignoring what I've said, again like in the previous thread, is also noted. I mean, don't be naive enough to think that no one remembers how you refused to acknowledge anything said by other editors in the last thread because no one said anything you wanted to hear.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not the topic. That comment does not address the issue. Nobody in Australia describes dingoes as feral. An animal cannot be both native AND feral. Sources cannot override logic and common sense. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I summarized what the given sources said, i.e., that dingoes are descended from domesticated dogs brought to Australia thousands of years ago by humans, and have integrated themselves into Australian ecosystems, and I'm also pointing out that you brought up this exact same topic in the previous thread where you insisted on refusing to acknowledge any other viewpoint in that thread that did not perfectly mirror your own. If you're going to deliberately ignore what I said because it is not what you want to hear, and if you're going to deliberately ignore the WP:SOURCEs given for the dingo's status as a feral species, what else is there?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Logic and reality. We do not copy things from sources if they make no sense. I repeat... Nobody in Australia describes dingoes as feral. An animal cannot be both native AND feral. Sources cannot override logic and common sense. And please stop the personal attacks. They only help to convince me of the weakness of your argument. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Pointing out that you are repeating your same argument from incredulity is not a personal attack. Pointing out that your personal incredulity has not yet invalidated the given sources is not a personal attack.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

You are failing to discuss the issue, seemingly preferring to discuss me. I am guessing that you're not Australian. A wise editor, upon being advised by an Australian of what I have said, would have responded with something like "Ah, perhaps the sources are wrong about the situation in Australia", and sought more information from me and from Australian sources. But you prefer to discuss me.

Since you choose not to do what I've suggested above, here are a couple of Australian sources where a clear distinction between dingoes and feral dogs is made. One is a government publication, the other a highly regarded journal....

http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/pests-diseases-and-weeds/pest-animals/a-z-of-pest-animals/wild-dog-dingo-dog-hybrids-feral-or-wild

https://theconversation.com/dingoes-dogs-and-the-feral-identity-11635

HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Here are some more articles from high profile sources that distinguish between dingoes and feral animals in Australia...

https://nt.gov.au/environment/animals/wildlife-in-nt/dingo

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/dingoes-as-pest-control/4570856

https://australianmuseum.net.au/dingo

HiLo48 (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

And some more....

https://www.pestsmart.org.au/wild-dog-canis-lupus-familiaris-canis-lupus-dingo-and-hybrids/

https://www.feralscan.org.au/wilddogscan/pagecontent.aspx?page=wilddog_historyandbiology

Dingoes are NOT feral dogs.

HiLo48 (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

There is clearly a linguistic difference at play here. Maybe it's an issue with Australian English. But it's obvious the word feral is used differently by the writer being depended on as a source by User:William Harris, and by Australians in general, including those referenced in the many sources above (which are good quality sources.) Maybe this parallels terms like Fanny pack, very common in the USA, but laughed at for it's crude connotations in Australia and the UK. If you don't know what I'm talking about, please read the final sentence of the first paragraph of the lead of that article.

There are many such words and expressions in English, with dramatically different meanings in different parts of the world. It seems we have identified another. It's obvious from the Australian sources I have listed above that the dingo is seen as something distinctly different from a feral dog by Australian writers, and in fact, feral has strong negative connotations, connotations which don't apply to the dingo. The dingo is an Australian dog. It's reasonable to at least present the Australian perspective on the use of the word feral to describe it, or not.

Maybe we can compromise here and use words such as "described as feral by some writers, but not in Australia". Thoughts? HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

What compromise can there be? There were two sources given for use of the word "feral" as "descended from domesticated animals" but you explicitly and repeatedly said that that was wrong, wrong, weak, and wrong, and could never ever be used because that's not what they say in Australia.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

A compromise would be along the lines of what I proposed in my comment immediately above. Do please read the whole of that comment, and the preceding ones listing sources. Look at the sources too, and comment on my observation regarding language usage. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I read the entire comment. I don't understand how introducing WP:weasel words, i.e., that dingos are only referred to as "feral" by a certain fraction of nonAustralian writers (who got demoted from "scientist" and "researchers" apparently), constitutes a compromise.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

And then there's the problem of how your compromise would involve inserting a demonstrative falsehood into the lede as the two sources used to cite the use of the descriptor "feral" were written by Australian scientists and researchers.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

In saying it's a falsehood you are saying every other source I've listed above, many from government and major organisations, are false. It's far more clear that the word feral has multiple meanings. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Please do not evade the fact that you, and you alone, are the one claiming that no one in Australia allegedly refers to dingoes as "feral." Furthermore, your edit-warring in order to assert your self-alleged ownership of the page is noted, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Please stop ignoring all the evidence in the sources I have listed above. And I am definitely not the only one who disagrees with the feral label. Please read the history here more carefully. HiLo48 (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Definition of Feral - the Macquarie Dictionary

Australia's National Dictionary - Macquarie Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 542 first column. Published by Macquarie Dictionary Publishing Pty Ltd, Sydney University, Australia (2013). A Dictionary of Australian English.

Feral

1. wild, or existing in a state of nature, as animals (or, sometimes, plants)

2. having reverted to the wild state, as from domestication

3. of characteristics of the wild state

4. colloquial living as or looking like a feral

5. colloquial disgusting, gross

6. colloquial excellent, admirable

7. domesticated animal which has reverted to the wild state

8. a person who espouses environmentalism to the point of living close to nature in more or less primitive conditions and who shuns the normal codes of society in dress, habit and hygene

9. colloquial (mildly derogatory) a person, generally from the outer suburbs of a city or town and from a lower socio-economic background, viewed as uncultured

Therefore, User:HiLo48's proposed "described as feral by some writers, but not in Australia" is rebutted on the facts. William Harris • (talk) • 10:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It's the definition of domestication that's the issue here. Clearly the relationship between Aboriginal people and dingoes was very different from that between modern western people and their pampered pooches. I heard an interview recently with Guy Hull, who has just published The Dogs that Made Australia. It's all about the dingo. He argues that the dingo was never as close to humans as many people have claimed in the past. (Sorry, I don't have a copy yet. Maybe you could buy one.)

You are also ignoring the simple fact that many reputable Australian writers classify dingoes separately from feral dogs, as shown by the several sources I have listed above. Why do you do that? I find your absolute position rather puzzling. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You are the one claiming that, because no one in Australia refers to dingoes as "feral," "feral" can not be used in the article under any circumstances, to the point where you keep deleting two valid citations given for justification of the use of "feral" which were written by two different Australian researchers. Your half-remembered anecdote from a source you currently lack access to is not convincing justification, either.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

"You are the one claiming that, because no one in Australia refers to dingoes as feral " I did not say that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

To quote User:HiLo48: "There is clearly a linguistic difference at play here. Maybe it's an issue with Australian English. But it's obvious the word feral is used differently by the writer being depended on as a source by User:William Harris..." You were wrong, you presented unsourced conjecture as fact, did not bother to do any research, then wonder why editors here are not responding to you in the way that you would like. Now you query what "domestication" means. It is time for you to take a step back, look at your track record here since June, and reflect on what an independent third party might make of your aberrant, unacceptable behavior. The standard to which you hold other editors to account in other articles you do not hold to yourself. Before you reply once again with your inane "I am not the topic", I advise that your behaviour now certainly is the topic. It is now the only topic. William Harris • (talk) • 01:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

That is a completely false and insulting comment. It could easily be construed as a personal attack, with appropriate consequences sought. Your failure to discuss here since that time suggests you have not properly read what I have written. I am proud of my track record here. You cannot be proud of yours, since it doesn't exist. I am editing here in good faith. You are editing with unjustified certainty, which I am failing to understand. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Please spare us your petulant, false accusations of personal attacks, HiLo48. They do nothing to support your argument, nor do they assist in obfuscating the fact that you have not gained consensus to expunge use of the word "feral" from the lede and article.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Not yet, but I will continue to work on it. Many times in my life I have been in a minority, and right. I note again that you are not discussing what I have actually written, but as usual discussing me. HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe because you've been defending what you've written through cycles of edit-warring, inappropriately asserting ownership of this article, hurling false accusations of personal attacks and vandalism, and refusing to acknowledge anyone else has said because they don't mirror your own opinions?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, your behavior is and you are in denial. William Harris • (talk) • 04:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

No, this is not the place to discuss me or my behaviour. 04:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

As a prelude to WP:ANI, it is the perfect place and the right time, immediately before events get away from you. William Harris • (talk) • 04:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

ANI? LOL. If I had edit warred while refusing to join the discussion on the Talk page for three months, I wouldn't see that as a wise option. Are you aware of WP:BOOMERANG?

Why can you not simply accept the reality that there simply are multiple definitions of the term feral dog in Australia, and some do not include dingoes? HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Solution is AN/I WP:DDE. I am not concerned about WP:BOOMERANG, and happy to "take one" for the good of the pack. "Such is my nature", said the wolf. William Harris • (talk) • 09:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Why can you not simply accept the reality that there simply are multiple definitions of the term feral dog in Australia, and some do not include dingoes? HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

So why is that justification for you to WP:OWN the page and eternally forbid anyone from ever using the term "feral" to describe how dingoes are descended from domesticated dogs?--Mr Fink (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those describe what I want to do. One thing I want to do is discuss content, and I am not part of that. Why can you not simply accept the reality that there simply are multiple definitions of the term feral dog in Australia, and some do not include dingoes? HiLo48 (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Many Australians do not see dingoes as feral dogs

Here is an article titled "Genes sort dingoes from feral dogs" - https://www.theherald.com.au/story/207980/genes-sort-dingoes-from-feral-dogs/

A quote - "Movement-activated cameras are also used to identify feral dogs and rule out the presence of dingoes."

That title and quote make it 100% clear that at least some Australians do not classify dingoes as feral dogs. It would therefore be inappropriate to use that adjective in the article without qualification. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Which brings us to the question of why, then, does the fact that "at least some Australians do not classify dingoes as feral dogs" justify the complete, utter, and total expunging of the use of the word "feral" from the lede and article, even though there are academic sources to justify the descriptor's use?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I can see that at least one writer sees the dingo is a feral dog. Many don't. My personal view is that feral is an inappropriate adjective to describe the dingo, but could accept a compromise that adds something along the lines of "described by some as feral" to the opening sentence. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

FRANCES THOMPSON, Upper Hunter Reporter for the Herald is not a mammologist nor a dingo expert. As pointed out to you above but you fail to acknowledge, Jackson et al 2017 included representatives from the University of NSW, the Smithsonian, the University of Canberra, the National Museum, the Government of NSW, the Australian Research Council, the University of South Australia. Do you have an CURRENT, EXPERT, AUSTRALIAN, WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY source that either rebuts the work of Jackson et al or specifically states that the Dingo is not a feral dog. Yes or No? 14.2.108.144 (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Nobody would bother writing such a claim. That's because in common Australian language the dingo is seen as something different from a feral dog. This is the point I wish you would just take on good faith from this Australian. I have presented many examples to demonstrate that point. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia written for the common man and woman. It is not an academic journal. We should not use language that conflicts with the version of the language used by a lot of Australians. We should simply acknowledge that there are differing views on the use of the word feral to describe the dingo. HiLo48 (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

BTW - I am rather surprised to find a brand new IP editor commenting on this topic as if they have had long involvement with it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

That would be a no then. 14.2.108.144 (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a place for conversation, not for point scoring. I wish other editors would comment on what I actually write here, rather than on me, and things I haven't said. Why can you not simply accept the reality that there simply are multiple definitions of the term feral dog in Australia, and some do not include dingoes? HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not the feral dog article and we are not attempting to define what is a feral dog. This is the dingo article and it has been stated to be a feral dog by reliable sources. You were asked, and you do not have a source that says that it is not. 14.2.108.144 (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't. And I am not trying to prove that it's not. It's almost impossible to prove a negative like that in an absolute sense. I am speaking of language usage. I have demonstrated that some Australians (many, I believe) do not describe dingoes as feral. They see them as separate from feral dogs. Hence my proposal to mention both usages. HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Silly editing

More information Editors are reminded of the purpose of this Talk page, and that using it to conduct (or renew) personal attacks will result in a block. ...

Editors are reminded of the purpose of this Talk page, and that using it to conduct (or renew) personal attacks will result in a block.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A misguided editor is reverting repeatedly, without apparently being able to comprehend two simple things.

Readers of English wikipedia speak English. If an article does not exist on English Wikipedia, it is useful to make a red link. It is not useful to link to a German article in the vague hope that the reader can speak German.
copying and pasting text from a source and presenting it in the voice of the encyclopaedia is never acceptable. If the source it's been copied from is not even noted, then that's even worse.

And yet this editor has repeatedly restored a copyright violation and a link to a German article. Why? 146.198.193.75 (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You have been quoted WP:ILL - Wikipedia Policy. It is WP that a link can be make to a foreign Wikipedia. Google translate can be used to read said Wikipedia for further information that is not available on the English Wikipedia. It is not your right to remove that option from other editors. You have been quoted MOS:QUOTE, also Wikipedia policy. It is WP that quotes can be made when they illustrate a subject - therefore it is not a policy violation. Your own citation of policy disregarded the section titled "What about quotes". All that you have done in this matter is highlighted that you are not aware of basic, Manual Of Style policies. Additionally, drop the attitude. William Harris • (talk) • 01:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I like your supercilious use of the passive voice. But WP:ILL is not a policy, it's a how-to guide. And MOS:QUOTE is not a policy, it's a guideline. And neither of them justifies linking to German language articles and plagiarising sources. 146.198.193.75 (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you aware that quoting what a source said is actually different than plagiarizing a source?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't look like you are. Who exactly is being quoted, do you think? 146.198.193.75 (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you believe that your "explanatory supplement" (above) is superior to a Wikipedia guideline? If you disagree with these rules, then feel free to refer your views to their respective Talk pages; I am sure you will get advised accordingly. Be aware that WP:DISRUPTSIGNS does not care if your edits were in good faith. Well, that's the hi and the lo of it. William Harris • (talk) • 04:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

A how-to guide is not a rule. A guideline is not a rule. Not violating copyright, though, is a rule. 146.198.193.75 (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Sod off HiLo. William Harris • (talk) • 10:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

There may be a valid point being made in the wrong way. Why is that sentence in quotes? If it is because it is a direct quotation, where is it from? I can't find it in any of the references in the paragraph, although that could be a limitation in searching within google books. The reference should immediately follow the quote to make it clear where it is from. Finally, why would one want to quote such a horribly constructed sentence? Jts1882 | talk 11:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't find it, somebody changed the text again?! Furthermore, they didn't explain why, astonishing that someone can do that! I'm editing as BRD, but noticed an awful lot of potential improvements to the article. Removing the duplicate taxobox is a start, clarify the scope, don't announce things in the lede that need citations … think I need to take it off my watchlist. cygnis insignis 11:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I explained why back when I first made the edit. It is not a hard concept to grasp. We write using our own words and we cite sources so readers can verify the facts presented. We do not assemble articles by copying and pasting non-free text and presenting it in the voice of the encyclopaedia. We may on occasion wish to quote the specific words of a specific person, if the specific words and the specific person are significant but that is not what was happening here. None of your edit summaries gave any valid reason to present unsourced non-free text in this way. 146.198.193.75 (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

It's clear the quotes were merely to set off the definition of commensalism; it's a style often used in text books. It's not non-free text. It also didn't need the quote marks, but that's just because this isn't a textbook. And while there is nothing wrong with an interlanguage link when it would benefit the reader, I'm not so sure this was the best use of one. So in substance I agree with the edits.

That said, your attitude sucks. Get the eff off your high horse. William has been on Wikipedia for years, and has been the single best contributor for all articles on wild canids, greatly improving our coverage and keeping them up to date regarding the latest developments in genetic research into their origins, a very rapidly moving field. Meanwhile your edits are pissant little powder trips, backed up with unfounded accusations and a sociopathic arrogance that you have in no way earned the right to. Make another non-consensus edit to this article again and you will be blocked for vandalism. oknazevad (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

And your attitude is truly vile. You should grow up. Also, carefully read WP:NOTVAND. And if William really has been on Wikipedia for years, you'd think he would know some basics of article quality, and understand the massive difference between a how-to guide and a policy. Someone who confuses those two things really can't add much value to the encyclopaedia. 146.198.193.75 (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

[ec] Am I supposed to know who you are, IP guy, and why that might have some bearing on this discussion. I created a stub, that you implied ought to exist, am I still deserving of this chastisement? I'm sad now, really, it's just a place where we try to be useful. Creating content is much more satisfying than drama mongering, so I would prefer that you piss off and do something else. cygnis insignis 12:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Great that you created the stub instead of bizarrely imagining that all English speakers also speak German. Pity you are so obnoxious though. I would prefer that you piss off too. 146.198.193.75 (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

HiLo, I mean IP146.193.75, can you give a justification for retaining your comments that are personally attacking Cygnis and Oknazevad? Or are you trying to make this talkpage a monument to your incivility?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The editor cannot reply at this time. William Harris • (talk) • 01:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Close

Talk:Dingo/Archive 2

External links modified

Dingo speciation as written in the paragraph "DNA Analysis"

Sockpuppetry

Taxobox with "var." stipulation

Cultural impact

External links modified

External links modified

Page protection

Using a modified Infobox dog breed template instead of Taxobox

External links modified

Requested move 19 March 2015

Revisit

External links modified

Native status

The sentence "The dingo is..."

DINGO - Conflicting statements in Description

Subspecies or species

Dingo reclassified in 2014 after genome sequenced

"Feral" vs "wild"

How can the dingo be both native and feral?

Definition of Feral - the Macquarie Dictionary

Many Australians do not see dingoes as feral dogs

Silly editing

Amusing

Related Articles