![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry
Dingo | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Australian dingo | |
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
Order: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | |
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), |
The"cultural Impact section is fairly woeful. A large slab of it has been written with a very clear bias towards portraying dingoes as endangered native animals, and that anybody espousing an other viewpoint (eg Tim Flannery) as being willing to endorsing any level of cruelty and advocating for complete extinction of the species. It's also ridiculously emotive for an encyclopaedia article. This has been achieved by selecting references from a the extreme viewpoints, and then adding a few extra words like "all" or "any" to even those sources. I suppose we should try to balance it up by quoting the many sources on the other side that describe dingoes as "magical spirit guides" and use words like "genocide" and "torture" to describe culls. Just kidding. The whole section needs to be rewritten in a neutral tone and any fringe material removed so that it actually reflects the consensus opinion of environmental managers on both sides. Devoting paragraphs to the viewpoints of a few extremists in an attempt to demonise the opposition is still a violation of WP:FRINGE.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Dingo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.epa.qld.gov.au/register/p01136aa.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dingo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I have requested, and been granted, page protection for Dingo over the next 3 months. Protection at the WP:WHITELOCK level prevents edits from all IP editors until it has been reviewed. This will bring a close to the recent vandalism that we have been experiencing, and I will re-assess after May. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 19:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
Statement by William Harris:
Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 04:57, 25 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)
@
William Harris: The ICZN is not an authority on taxonomy. They are an authority on nomenclature, i.e. naming of taxons.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
The guidelines at WikiProject Mammals say to default to MSW on matters of taxonomy unless secondary sources widely disagree with it.
According to MSW, there is no taxon for Australian dingos.
Rather they are a part of the subspecies Canis lupus dingo
(which is covered at dingo (taxon)).
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).
If you are still interested in classifying Australian dingos as a separate species, please make that into a separate proposal.
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Dingo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline ( talk) 13:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Dingo →
Australian 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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dingo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Calling this dog native based on one act by one Australian government clearly violates WP:DUE. Multiple other governments and a massive majority of scientists state that it is a human introduction. Such a fringe viewpoint scarcely belongs in the article at all, certainly not in lede. Mark Marathon ( talk) 10:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
What do you think about the sentence "The dingo is the largest terrestrial predator in Australia, and plays an important role as an apex predator. "?
Do you see any room for improvement?
The structure is like "...is a predator and plays a predator role". Could be tightened up or something? Chrisrus ( talk) 16:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Under the heading Description, on sentence states that Dingos only hold their tails down. Another sentence, and the end of the topic, states that Dingoes hold their tails upwards, even arching over their backs. Clearly, an authoritative correction should be made to clarify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:68AC:6140:60EE:2776:65:37B9 ( talk) 05:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Dingos are more closely related to domestic dogs than wolves, but are a seperate species, Canis dingo. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by A M Clark AUS ( talk • contribs) 06:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
References
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 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)
It makes no sense at all. HiLo48 ( talk) 01:27, 25 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)
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
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)
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.
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)
|
Provocation, irrelevant to improvement of this article |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Someone has taken it upon themselves to repeatedly remove my most recent post, accusing me of making personal attacks. But they are entirely comfortable with other people saying:
Funny, that. 146.198.193.75 ( talk) 01:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry
Dingo | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Australian dingo | |
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
Order: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | |
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), |
The"cultural Impact section is fairly woeful. A large slab of it has been written with a very clear bias towards portraying dingoes as endangered native animals, and that anybody espousing an other viewpoint (eg Tim Flannery) as being willing to endorsing any level of cruelty and advocating for complete extinction of the species. It's also ridiculously emotive for an encyclopaedia article. This has been achieved by selecting references from a the extreme viewpoints, and then adding a few extra words like "all" or "any" to even those sources. I suppose we should try to balance it up by quoting the many sources on the other side that describe dingoes as "magical spirit guides" and use words like "genocide" and "torture" to describe culls. Just kidding. The whole section needs to be rewritten in a neutral tone and any fringe material removed so that it actually reflects the consensus opinion of environmental managers on both sides. Devoting paragraphs to the viewpoints of a few extremists in an attempt to demonise the opposition is still a violation of WP:FRINGE.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Dingo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.epa.qld.gov.au/register/p01136aa.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dingo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I have requested, and been granted, page protection for Dingo over the next 3 months. Protection at the WP:WHITELOCK level prevents edits from all IP editors until it has been reviewed. This will bring a close to the recent vandalism that we have been experiencing, and I will re-assess after May. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 19:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
Statement by William Harris:
Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 04:57, 25 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)
@
William Harris: The ICZN is not an authority on taxonomy. They are an authority on nomenclature, i.e. naming of taxons.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
The guidelines at WikiProject Mammals say to default to MSW on matters of taxonomy unless secondary sources widely disagree with it.
According to MSW, there is no taxon for Australian dingos.
Rather they are a part of the subspecies Canis lupus dingo
(which is covered at dingo (taxon)).
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).
If you are still interested in classifying Australian dingos as a separate species, please make that into a separate proposal.
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Dingo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline ( talk) 13:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Dingo →
Australian 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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dingo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Calling this dog native based on one act by one Australian government clearly violates WP:DUE. Multiple other governments and a massive majority of scientists state that it is a human introduction. Such a fringe viewpoint scarcely belongs in the article at all, certainly not in lede. Mark Marathon ( talk) 10:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
What do you think about the sentence "The dingo is the largest terrestrial predator in Australia, and plays an important role as an apex predator. "?
Do you see any room for improvement?
The structure is like "...is a predator and plays a predator role". Could be tightened up or something? Chrisrus ( talk) 16:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Under the heading Description, on sentence states that Dingos only hold their tails down. Another sentence, and the end of the topic, states that Dingoes hold their tails upwards, even arching over their backs. Clearly, an authoritative correction should be made to clarify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:68AC:6140:60EE:2776:65:37B9 ( talk) 05:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Dingos are more closely related to domestic dogs than wolves, but are a seperate species, Canis dingo. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by A M Clark AUS ( talk • contribs) 06:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
References
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 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)
It makes no sense at all. HiLo48 ( talk) 01:27, 25 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)
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
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)
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.
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)
|
Provocation, irrelevant to improvement of this article |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Someone has taken it upon themselves to repeatedly remove my most recent post, accusing me of making personal attacks. But they are entirely comfortable with other people saying:
Funny, that. 146.198.193.75 ( talk) 01:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
|