To state that *all* labs are descended from on foundational dog is incorrect. From the Bucceleuch website: "In the 1830’s, the 5th Duke of Buccleuch was one of the first people in Britain to import dogs from Newfoundland to use as gun dogs on his Scottish estates. A strong bloodline developed, beginning with Buccleuch Ned in 1882 and Buccleuch Avon in 1885, and all Buccleuch Labradors can be traced back to those first imported dogs. While Buccleuch Labradors were primarily working dogs and never competed, their bloodline has formed the ancestry of many champions."
They were definately a major breeder, but not the only one. The AKC site staes "Accurate pedigrees of today's Labs go back as far as 1878" Since Bucceleuch Avon was born in 1885, he was not the foundational dog, but a foundational dog.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.208.11 ( talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If the breed was originally developed in the UK, why is it Labrador? -- Menchi 05:35, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps describing the Labrador as being "further developed" and first recognized in the UK would be more accurate. -Steorling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.247.113 ( talk • contribs) 04:08, August 19 2006 (UTC)
I put my Origin question in the wrong category. Sorry!! Are there two different types of "Lab"? American" and "English"? What are the differences if so? Kari KY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.225.148 ( talk • contribs) 22:48, October 5 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of pictures and it is not helping the presentation of the article. Should something be done about it? Thelb4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelb4 ( talk • contribs) 15:34, September 8 2005 (UTC)
Bah! edit clash!
Anyhoo, whilst we are on the subject of doggie mug-shots. I think it would be good to have a photo or photo's to try and demonstrate the differences between the show and work strains. As a lab owner I have met meny of each kind and the differences between the two can be very dramatic! Especially since (where I am) it there has been a high demand of the "chunky lab" (basically, an over exagerated version of the show strain), and when you see it compared to an anorexic looking work bred dog, you can be confused as to whether they are even members of the same breed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tekana ( talk • contribs) 18:58, September 8 2005 (UTC)
I would offer my dog as a model, but he is neither work or show strain, his father was a work, his mother a show.. hee hee, I get beauty AND brains, arent I lucky! Tekana (O.o) Talk 18:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
That image "pushed to the middle" is what I was talking about above--works differently depending on how wide your browser window is set. if you make the window really narrow, it should be over to the left under the other photo...but then everything's REALLY narrow. As I said, that would be fixed by putting the 2 photos back into a table. maybe I'll try that. Elf | Talk 19:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Guys, I stumbled upon this article. Somebody do something about it :). The photos on the left should be removed (or moved somewhere below). I don't have the time to read the article, but I believe it's fairly good. Robodesign 18:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Great overview, if anyone is interested in sharing photos of their labs go here: http://flickr.com/groups/blacklabradors/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.57.245.11 ( talk • contribs) .
What bothers me most right now is how many of the pictures in the article ATM have been ruined by too high jpeg compression. Acdx 13:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to come off sounding like a snob about something a moment...these photos really aren't great representations of labs,and I think it's not just about them not all being "show dogs". The picture at the top of the page is just a really bad showing of the dog in the first place...all turned around on itself like that. I also don't understand some of the "captions" with the photos. For example the photo of a yellow lab with the caption about poor nose pigment is actually pigmented very well. As an aside, I've never in my life heard bad pigment called a "snow nose". Every breeder or enthusiast I've ever met in any breed calls an all pink nose a "dudley". Maybe it's a US/UK difference, I don't pretend to know. -Steorling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.247.113 ( talk • contribs) 05:00, August 19 2006 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, let's talk about the "Dudley Lab" photo? What the heck is that thing? One thing for sure, that's not a Labrador!!
I agree completely! All you have to do is look at the large white patch on the "Dudley Lab's" chest to know that this dog is a mixed breed. This photo needs to be removed. Lorih307 05:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC) lorih307
Would someone fix the name on the picture of a so-called "golden lab"? There is NO SUCH THING as a golden lab, unless the dog is a mixed breed and referred to in an informal sense. If that's the case, the photo does not belong in a Labrador Retriever page at all. For that matter, many of the photos don't look like pure labs anyway. The picture thing has really gotten out of hand, with scores of people posting a picture of their own faithful companion, regardless of whether or not the dog is a good representation of the breed standard.
I don't know how to do it, but I really think that it would be great to see if someone could put up a picture of a fox red labrador on here, the red is a shade of the yellow, and the color is becoming more popular, so I think it would be great to get a picture of one on here. 67.163.210.82 02:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to thank the editor responsible for taking down all the incorrect and biased nonsense which was previously posted on the main site under the sub-heading of Silver Labrador. Admittedly, that which is now under the sub-heading is extremely limited in scope (understatement), but at least the remaining information isn't the unsubstantiated and intentionally incorrect disinformation which was previously posted under that heading. 65.73.71.26 23:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)silverlab 6/6/07
The information on this site regarding silver labs is not only grossly biased, it is unsubstantiated intentional disinformation. The majority of information on this site is solely the unsubstantiated opinions of blatantly biased non-silver lab breeders and owners who post anti-Silver Lab hate sites on the internet. If the contributing editors can not substantiate and document: 1) "the original silver lab kennel had Weimers", 2) gene mapping was NOT done on silver labs in the 80s, and 3) Silver Labs are a "scam" (and all like accusations and slurs made on this site), then Wikipedia should insist these inflammatory and fraudulent accusations be withdrawn. By no stretch of the imagination is this site either correct or objective on the topic of Silver Labrador Retrievers. More importantly, when editing is done to this site to correct the incorrect allegations and accusations made by the anti-silver factions, this site editor removes the corrections in accordance with her bias (see history).
If this Wikipedia site editor is incapable of editing for objectivity instead of bias, then another editor should be assigned to this site. If this editor is so delusional she believes she is being objective on the topic of silver labs, then the topic of Silver Labs should be submitted for arbitration to Wikipedia's Arbitration Board. 65.73.71.17 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)silverlab 5/31/07
Someone has "edited" the section regarding silver labradors to make the color aberration appear to be anything other than a ~colorful~ marketing gimmick (pun intended). Silver lab enthusiasts, I would urge you to use sources that do not originate from "silver" lab breeders or from wishful thinking about a purchase that the AKC and the LRC refuses to recognize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.231.66 ( talk • contribs) 04:02, December 22 2006 (UTC)
The information currently displayed in this article about the silver labrador is factually inaccurate. The article has been semi-protected and I am currently unable to repair it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikeltic ( talk • contribs) 14:36, January 6 2007 (UTC) This post was replaced after having been removed at 01:40, January 7, 2007 (UTC) by 24.115.231.66 ( talk · contribs).
Some silver Labrador enthusiasts continue to vandalize the page and include un-cited and non-scientific statements as fact. There is currently no test to prove or disprove that a "silver" Labrador is a pure bred Labrador. There is no proof or evidence that the dilute "silver" gene in "silver" labs did or did not come from Wiemaraners. It is true, however, that the LRC does not condone, promote, or recognize silver as a legitimate color for the Labrador retriever. It is also true that to date no "silver" Labrador has ever appeared outside of the United States by breeding two native chocolates together. It is also a fact that the original kennel where "silver" Labradors first appeared also bread Weimaraners. It is also a fact that "silver" Labrador breeders charge upwards of 2-5 times as much for one of these dogs and that their motives behind their proof appear to be financially motivated. A true Labrador enthusiast doesn't care about money.
It is also true that of the three people I know who have "silver" Labradors, all of them claim the dogs act more like Weimaraners than labs. It is also true that one of them calls her dog a Weim, despite the $2000 she paid to register him as a "silver" Labrador.
So to the three or four people who keep vandalizing this page with their propaganda--please follow Wikipedia guidelines, cite your references, and if you love the breed... for God's sake, stop making false claims. This is a dictionary, not a fairytale where you can make your wishes about bogus “scientific evidence” come true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.231.66 ( talk • contribs) 22:02, January 5 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of "bogus “scientific evidence”, can anyone ANYWHERE come up with one shred of "scientific evidence" proving Silver Labs are NOT pure bred Labrador Retrievers?
Apparently no one can substantiate the "fact" that the original kennel where silvers were first reported in the US kept Wiemers. I'll attribute that as another anti-silver "fairytale". Or should I say fairy-tail?
Do you really expect anyone to believe AKC would register silver labs as AKC registered Labrador Retrievers if AKC was not dead positive they were pure bred? Particularly after AKC spent the time and money to send out field investigators (twice) to inspect all the known ancestors of silver labs; and those AKC investigators went all the way back to the black Lab ancestors of silver labs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.71.118 ( talk • contribs) 05:38, February 19, 2007 (UTC)
Silver Labs can, and do, enter shows. Because Silver Labs carry AKC registration — they are eligible for an AKC sanctioned show. However, once entered, the objectivity of the judging will undoubtedly be slanted. Then again, the bias of show judges is legendary, and show judges displayed that same bias against Choc Labs for decades. I suggest you go directly to AKC for clarification of your misconception(s).silverlab 65.73.71.53 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again the anti-silver faction thinks either AKC or the silver breeders need to prove silvers are purebred, when only the anti-silver last ditch hold-outs are claiming silvers are not pure bred Labs. If you antis think you can set aside your ignorance and anti-silver bias long enough to attempt an understanding of genetics, try deciphering ( http://www.biomedcentral.com/home). That research gives a very good genetic analysis of genetic color coat migration in K-9s. Silver Labs are pure bred labs, and the only ones claiming otherwise are a small group of elitists who want to dictate THEIR ignorance and bias to the majority of Lab owners and breeders.silverlab 65.73.71.53 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll interpret your last statement as a concession that you are either incapable of understanding the genetics of what produces a silver coat in pure bred Silver Labrador Retrievers (( http://www.biomedcentral.com/home); or you are unwilling to admit that you are incorrect, and simply trying to protect your financial investment by slandering legitimate Silver Labrador breeders. Silver lab 65.73.71.77 23:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no proof that Silver Labs are unpure, and I have owned over 12 in my life, alongside of yellows, blacks & chocolates. Our Kennel IS proof they are IDENTICAL in behavior. So anti-silver breeders, give it up. Your argumnt ended in the late 90s and is old news. Silver labs are owned all over the world as many kennels have sold to places outside the U.S. for over a DECADE. Our kennels is proof of this. I'm not here to promote our kennel, I'm here to say that there is no debate about the silver being unpure. All your links you keep linking to are sites that YOU create that have NO basis. So you are jeopardizing Wikipedia's credibility by placing misleading & false information up about silver labs--there are over 50 kennels in the US alone that sell these! And they've existed for decades! Predjudice towards dog coat colors?! Come on, wake up. That soundsl like a caveman's belief. next thing you know you'll be telling me certain labs from certain regions are unpure because of their environment. Where does it end?
Silver Lab breeders: You know you're being deceitful, and if you honestly cared for the Labrador breed you would not continue to dupe people with the notion of the silver Labrador. You are the only breeders that breed for color and color alone. If these dogs hold merit, why don't you push to make a new breed--call these dogs the California Retriever or something. Everyone knows they're Weimeraners.... I just hope you are unsuccessful in destroying the breed before science can evolve to the point where this fact can be detected.
The appearance and variations sections are quite lengthy and not well focussed. Hopefully tagging the article as "cleanup" will address these and gain review of the rest of the text in general. FT2 ( Talk | email) 12:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
In the history section it states:
and also
Would these sentences be better if combined somehow? Any volunteers? FT2 ( Talk | email) 12:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
We have 3 sections now (I just added one I'm afraid!) covering field v. show, English v. American, and "Physical lines and variants".
This is daft. We need to merge or handle this aspect better.
Any proposals anyone? FT2 ( Talk | email) 13:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
An editor has been blocked using range blocks of a week at a time, due to persistent article and talk page vandalism.
See AN/I entries dates: 03:05, 4 February 2007 (FT2) and 03:13, 4 February 2007 (Pilotguy). FT2 ( Talk | email) 03:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I received the following from user:Silverlabrador by email:
The info about silver labs currently on your site(s) is dead wrong and certainly not neutral. I've corrected it numerous times over the past few months and it keeps getting redone, and redone with extreme bias. If these anti-silver experts who are responsible for these intentional distortions (and flat out lies) are so set on producing facts, I (as well as about a million other Lab owners) would like to read the name of this phantom "US-based kennel where "silver" Labradors initially were reported kept Weimaraners in the kennel"; or see one FACT which proves silver labs are NOT pure bred Labradors. By no stretch of the imagination would AKC have registered silver labs as "pure bred Labrador Retrievers" unless AKC was dead positive all the lineage (which they personally inspected all the way back to black) was "pure bred Labrador Retriever" (AKC has stated this on the record). All I read on this "fact sheet" is hearsay and jealousy by breeders who can not sell their Labs. What you are posting is wrong and you are doing a disservice to legitimate Labrador owner and breeders of silver labs
Please refer to website silverlabradorinfo.com for more information about silver labs. silverlabrador |
My response so far is as follows:
Hi, and thanks for the email.
It would certainly have been helpful to discuss and make points on Wikipedia. Instead you edited others words to say things that they didn't say, both on the article and on the talk page. That is Vandalism, and for that your account has been blocked. I am happy to discuss the isues of silver labradors with you by email, though. If there is legitimate information then that's important. But your history (as far as I have seen it) is someone who fabricates quotes and changes others quoted words to suit yourself. So it will be others words I trust, not just your own (unsupported) claims. Let's take your points one at a time:
I have also read the werb site you linked to -- thank you. Again, some questions:
Thanks for the help, these are my initial questions. |
FT2 ( Talk | email) 13:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
All those questions were answered in detail. Why have you failed to post the answers? Silver lab
The Labrador Retriever Club is exactly what its name implies, i.e., a CLUB; and that "club" is a group of elitist which represents less than .1% of Labrador Retriever owners and breeders throughout the world. Yet the LRC feels they, and they alone, should be able to impose their self-grandizing "standards" (which are based solely on their financial involvement) on the remaining 99.9% of Labrador Retriever owners and breeders throughout the world. In the over all context of the Labrador Retriever community (and a great pun), this is a prime example of the tail trying to wag the dog.
The AKC originally issued AKC registrations listing "silver" as a recognized color for the Labrador Retriever (I have several silver color certifications issued by AKC). In the late 80s, the AKC relented to pressure from special interest breeders of non-silver Labs (read that as breeders with huge financial interests such as the LRC), and decided to call silver labs chocolate labs. By any stretch of the imagination, this is an incredible example of denial. I am personally certain the AKC will eventually have to revert to their earlier acceptance of silver as a common color of choice for AKC registered Labrador Retrievers; they had to do it for chocolate, and they will have to do it for silver. silverlab 65.73.71.89 16:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Added some new pictures of Labrador Retrievers ... please feel free to add more. Kumarrrr 12:53, 18 February 2007 (GMT)
The references section for this article needs serious clean-up; mostly for consistency between how the entries look, and perhaps also for relevancy concerning what they support. Also, many of the sources appear several times.
Furthermore, I am a bit concerned by the number of links to sites for private breeders. Most breeders of any dog will, by default, know quite a bit about their breed, but the truth is their websites just might not make the greatest of sources here. In particular is one called "Endless Mountain" that is continuously added into the article, which among things, claims that opposite-sex pairings of labs work "100%" of the time, and that "show-bred" labs are more responsive in the field. Considering the "American" lines are indeed bred for working, and that the dogs are chosen out for their hunting and trial responsiveness, this latter claim almost borders on the bizarre. Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 03:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
May often be confused with a yellow labrador; turns out it's a cross between a golden retriever & labrador retriever. Maybe some info could be filtered in or an article created. I'd do it myself, but, tho I grew up with a golden labrador (Hamish, v good-natured), these days I'm more of a cat person... Cheers! Hakluyt bean 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be a consistent approach to capitalization of the word "lab" when used in mid-sentence. I'm not sure which is correct, I just see it both ways in the same article. Hopefully someone knows how it should be and can correct it so it is consistent throughout the article.
Mungk 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
How long is the interval of each heat period of an average female labrador? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.1.53.38 ( talk) 01:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
Isn't Comet (from Full house) actually a Golden retriever, not a labrador? 147.76.180.135 23:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
"The coat of the black Labrador is solid black, with no white markings allowed except for a small spot on the chest." This, of course, makes it sound like labs are born in a factory, with managers determining whether the product meets specifications or not before putting them on store shelves. Celedor15 23:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the "Silver Labs" sub-section from this article's external links, because all of these pages are currently linked from the references section. WP:EL suggests that sites that have been used as references should be linked in a references section, not an external links section. -- Muchness 11:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's get some references that are reliable and solid, AKC sites, research in peer-reviewed journals on silver labrador retrievers or don't include the information, please. How is this website a reliable source, for example? [1] What are the qualifications of the web site author that show he/she is an authority? I removed the one bad link, and the sentence it referenced--please find a live link or another stable and reliable reference, not just someone's website commentary, before reinserting it, and verify all the links, thanks. KP Botany 05:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Once again, the Weim/Lab (aka Silver Lab) mutt nuts are including false information and make-believe scientific studies that cannot be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.230.115 ( talk) 03:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Notable for the breed, needs a section. FT2 ( Talk | email) 21:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
... as a result of repeated posting of personal attacks by IP-hopping anon editor. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL to understand what is wrong with this. As a result, this page may not be edited by anonymous editors or new accounts for a brief period. - Alison ☺ 02:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have a couple of pictures of a full-blooded white and full-blooded yellow labs. Is there anyway I could edit the LAB page and put these pics up? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbb22 ( talk • contribs)
I want to add the cross-breed of Beagles and Labs to the page - Beagladors. I have one and have recently encountered several, it is believable that they are an up and coming breed that will be very popular in coming years. I think that they ought to be added to the cross over section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollybugs ( talk • contribs) 06:17, July 7, 2007
Mollybugs, if you want to add Beagladors, be sure that first you have at least one reliable source discussing beaglodors in the context of labradors. -- SmokeyJoe 01:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that we should leave out all the silly portmanteau cross-breeds, A "beaglador" is not a breed. Exception might be labradoodle which was originally bred for a specific purpose - hypoallergenic guide dogs. Although the fashion for portmanteau dogs has interferred with that original purpose.
Is it standard to have quotes with the footnoted reference? I've never seen that done before, and it seems a bit odd to me, as most are linked to a webpage where the quoted content can be found anyway. -- Jude. 01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
(Removed from RFC, list created, seems fairly non controversial).
As both the UK and US's most popular dog breed, and also one of the most popular service dog breeds, there are a fair number of genuinely notable and famous labradors listed in the article.
I've just added "Lucky and Flo", twin Black labs who were the first dogs to perform a counterfeit DVD raid and first dogs to be awarded Malaysia's "outstanding service award", who were widely reported in the media. There are a lot already and will be more. This causes an undue weight problem in that the article is becoming (or will probably become) somewhat unbalanced towards this growing list.
There are already a fair number of notable entries in the list, enough to justify a "list of" article. Would anyone have an objection to (or comments on) moving these to a more suitable article List of famous Labradors? Thanks! FT2 ( Talk | email) 12:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is well organized, and overall in very good shape. There's a couple of major gaps in referencing that really need to be taken care of prior to GA status; notably:
The reference formatting should be fixed. Inline citations should not just include a link, but also full citation information; author (if applicable), title, where it was published, date of publication, date of retrieval (if it's available as a web link). It's also unnecessary to actually include the text of the reference in quotes in each listing; let people click on the links and just tell us where you got it from. For more information on reference formatting, go to WP:CITE.
The sentence "Because of this it is good practice that Labradors are microchipped," is suggesting doing something that some owners might consider controversial, which is a violation of WP:NPOV.
The images all look good. The image under 'color' is very small, and hard to see. It could be increased in size a bit. The image tag of President Clinton & Buddy is missing the ARC identifier in the National Archives.
The article needs a good copyedit, to fix a couple of minor grammatical errors in the language; particularly in the earlier parts of the article.
Other than these minor issues, the article looks great! I'll put this on hold at WP:GAC until these issues are fixed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 02:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The article, as it stands, is in great shape. A few little things remain prior to GA, but overall, a big improvement. I made a few minor changes to the grammar and reference formatting. With regard to the quotes within references, while there's nothing in wikipedia's manual of style expressly forbidding it, it's generally a bit unorthodox and unnecessary to do so, in the wiki as well as in print. Generally, it's only necessary to include the information required to find the article that you are citing information from -- beyond that, there's these large buildings in many cities called "libraries", where people can go to actually read material and references. Including a link to the reference makes the process of physically going to the library often unnecessary, so that's good. Plus, if a link is available, just click on the link to read the full info, not just a quote -- including the quote also tends to increase the page size on the wiki article for downloading, too.
The history section looks good. The part about labradors being mostly found in cities like Moscow & Riga seems to be somewhat Russia-centric, and somewhat contradicts later data indicating that the UK & US have the largest labrador registrations; I can't imagine that large a shift in the labrador population between 1980 & the present day? I am also not sure of the validity of the statement regarding Tatiana Dimitriu? Who is she? Is she an expert on labradors? Her name is not mentioned in the corresponding reference #13, so where did this come from?
The other major issue is the new 'popularity and numbers' section, which to me, seems to be listing and stating some rather trivial and subjective information, mainly in a list form. So it looks kind of like a trivia section in disguise. While the popularity is cited, it seems like very trivial and subjective information. Specifically, the source for 'most popular dog in the world' only goes to a very sketchy source on dogbreedz.com (while I'm not challenging dogbreedz.com, it is not clear how that site came across this specific information -- was it their survey? someone else's? did they look at and compare kennel registries?), dating back to 1991. However, the demographics information and table is interesting and notable. I wonder if the section could be improved by (a) rewriting the bulleted list as prose; (b) changing the title of the section to 'demographics'; or possibly (c) moving the whole section to near the end of the article, as it doesn't seem quite as important as some of the sections that follow it?
These are the only real major issues that remain. Other than that, the article is very close to GA,... Cheers! Dr. Cash 06:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
First, a much thanks to the editors who seem to have picked up the baton on this and gone cite-fixing! Much, much valued! Nice work!
I'm a little concerned some valuable information is being removed though. I'd like to double check that aspect while its current, if possible.
A lot of the cites removed fall into 2 categories, cites that included relevant text quotes, and multiple-cites reduced to one cite.
Some examples on specific edits:
The cite fixing is great and appreciated, it's nicely done. But can we discuss issues like the above to clarify some form of view on it? Thanks!
(And I'd be fine RFCing it, if we need more input.)
FT2 ( Talk | email) 00:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hiya,
Meantime to reiterate - thanks a million for the help on this. The last 10% of getting it to GA quality is good to have help on :) Look forward to seeing if we can polish up the last few issues on this article.
One question, can you review carefully the stats in the second half of the "popularity" section? Do the sources seem reliable and well-represented to you? The issue here is "registrations" vs. "living individuals" and so on. A second set of eyeballs to double-check would be valued. FT2 ( Talk | email) 09:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
To state that *all* labs are descended from on foundational dog is incorrect. From the Bucceleuch website: "In the 1830’s, the 5th Duke of Buccleuch was one of the first people in Britain to import dogs from Newfoundland to use as gun dogs on his Scottish estates. A strong bloodline developed, beginning with Buccleuch Ned in 1882 and Buccleuch Avon in 1885, and all Buccleuch Labradors can be traced back to those first imported dogs. While Buccleuch Labradors were primarily working dogs and never competed, their bloodline has formed the ancestry of many champions."
They were definately a major breeder, but not the only one. The AKC site staes "Accurate pedigrees of today's Labs go back as far as 1878" Since Bucceleuch Avon was born in 1885, he was not the foundational dog, but a foundational dog.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.208.11 ( talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If the breed was originally developed in the UK, why is it Labrador? -- Menchi 05:35, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps describing the Labrador as being "further developed" and first recognized in the UK would be more accurate. -Steorling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.247.113 ( talk • contribs) 04:08, August 19 2006 (UTC)
I put my Origin question in the wrong category. Sorry!! Are there two different types of "Lab"? American" and "English"? What are the differences if so? Kari KY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.225.148 ( talk • contribs) 22:48, October 5 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of pictures and it is not helping the presentation of the article. Should something be done about it? Thelb4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelb4 ( talk • contribs) 15:34, September 8 2005 (UTC)
Bah! edit clash!
Anyhoo, whilst we are on the subject of doggie mug-shots. I think it would be good to have a photo or photo's to try and demonstrate the differences between the show and work strains. As a lab owner I have met meny of each kind and the differences between the two can be very dramatic! Especially since (where I am) it there has been a high demand of the "chunky lab" (basically, an over exagerated version of the show strain), and when you see it compared to an anorexic looking work bred dog, you can be confused as to whether they are even members of the same breed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tekana ( talk • contribs) 18:58, September 8 2005 (UTC)
I would offer my dog as a model, but he is neither work or show strain, his father was a work, his mother a show.. hee hee, I get beauty AND brains, arent I lucky! Tekana (O.o) Talk 18:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
That image "pushed to the middle" is what I was talking about above--works differently depending on how wide your browser window is set. if you make the window really narrow, it should be over to the left under the other photo...but then everything's REALLY narrow. As I said, that would be fixed by putting the 2 photos back into a table. maybe I'll try that. Elf | Talk 19:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Guys, I stumbled upon this article. Somebody do something about it :). The photos on the left should be removed (or moved somewhere below). I don't have the time to read the article, but I believe it's fairly good. Robodesign 18:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Great overview, if anyone is interested in sharing photos of their labs go here: http://flickr.com/groups/blacklabradors/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.57.245.11 ( talk • contribs) .
What bothers me most right now is how many of the pictures in the article ATM have been ruined by too high jpeg compression. Acdx 13:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to come off sounding like a snob about something a moment...these photos really aren't great representations of labs,and I think it's not just about them not all being "show dogs". The picture at the top of the page is just a really bad showing of the dog in the first place...all turned around on itself like that. I also don't understand some of the "captions" with the photos. For example the photo of a yellow lab with the caption about poor nose pigment is actually pigmented very well. As an aside, I've never in my life heard bad pigment called a "snow nose". Every breeder or enthusiast I've ever met in any breed calls an all pink nose a "dudley". Maybe it's a US/UK difference, I don't pretend to know. -Steorling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.247.113 ( talk • contribs) 05:00, August 19 2006 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, let's talk about the "Dudley Lab" photo? What the heck is that thing? One thing for sure, that's not a Labrador!!
I agree completely! All you have to do is look at the large white patch on the "Dudley Lab's" chest to know that this dog is a mixed breed. This photo needs to be removed. Lorih307 05:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC) lorih307
Would someone fix the name on the picture of a so-called "golden lab"? There is NO SUCH THING as a golden lab, unless the dog is a mixed breed and referred to in an informal sense. If that's the case, the photo does not belong in a Labrador Retriever page at all. For that matter, many of the photos don't look like pure labs anyway. The picture thing has really gotten out of hand, with scores of people posting a picture of their own faithful companion, regardless of whether or not the dog is a good representation of the breed standard.
I don't know how to do it, but I really think that it would be great to see if someone could put up a picture of a fox red labrador on here, the red is a shade of the yellow, and the color is becoming more popular, so I think it would be great to get a picture of one on here. 67.163.210.82 02:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to thank the editor responsible for taking down all the incorrect and biased nonsense which was previously posted on the main site under the sub-heading of Silver Labrador. Admittedly, that which is now under the sub-heading is extremely limited in scope (understatement), but at least the remaining information isn't the unsubstantiated and intentionally incorrect disinformation which was previously posted under that heading. 65.73.71.26 23:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)silverlab 6/6/07
The information on this site regarding silver labs is not only grossly biased, it is unsubstantiated intentional disinformation. The majority of information on this site is solely the unsubstantiated opinions of blatantly biased non-silver lab breeders and owners who post anti-Silver Lab hate sites on the internet. If the contributing editors can not substantiate and document: 1) "the original silver lab kennel had Weimers", 2) gene mapping was NOT done on silver labs in the 80s, and 3) Silver Labs are a "scam" (and all like accusations and slurs made on this site), then Wikipedia should insist these inflammatory and fraudulent accusations be withdrawn. By no stretch of the imagination is this site either correct or objective on the topic of Silver Labrador Retrievers. More importantly, when editing is done to this site to correct the incorrect allegations and accusations made by the anti-silver factions, this site editor removes the corrections in accordance with her bias (see history).
If this Wikipedia site editor is incapable of editing for objectivity instead of bias, then another editor should be assigned to this site. If this editor is so delusional she believes she is being objective on the topic of silver labs, then the topic of Silver Labs should be submitted for arbitration to Wikipedia's Arbitration Board. 65.73.71.17 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)silverlab 5/31/07
Someone has "edited" the section regarding silver labradors to make the color aberration appear to be anything other than a ~colorful~ marketing gimmick (pun intended). Silver lab enthusiasts, I would urge you to use sources that do not originate from "silver" lab breeders or from wishful thinking about a purchase that the AKC and the LRC refuses to recognize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.231.66 ( talk • contribs) 04:02, December 22 2006 (UTC)
The information currently displayed in this article about the silver labrador is factually inaccurate. The article has been semi-protected and I am currently unable to repair it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikeltic ( talk • contribs) 14:36, January 6 2007 (UTC) This post was replaced after having been removed at 01:40, January 7, 2007 (UTC) by 24.115.231.66 ( talk · contribs).
Some silver Labrador enthusiasts continue to vandalize the page and include un-cited and non-scientific statements as fact. There is currently no test to prove or disprove that a "silver" Labrador is a pure bred Labrador. There is no proof or evidence that the dilute "silver" gene in "silver" labs did or did not come from Wiemaraners. It is true, however, that the LRC does not condone, promote, or recognize silver as a legitimate color for the Labrador retriever. It is also true that to date no "silver" Labrador has ever appeared outside of the United States by breeding two native chocolates together. It is also a fact that the original kennel where "silver" Labradors first appeared also bread Weimaraners. It is also a fact that "silver" Labrador breeders charge upwards of 2-5 times as much for one of these dogs and that their motives behind their proof appear to be financially motivated. A true Labrador enthusiast doesn't care about money.
It is also true that of the three people I know who have "silver" Labradors, all of them claim the dogs act more like Weimaraners than labs. It is also true that one of them calls her dog a Weim, despite the $2000 she paid to register him as a "silver" Labrador.
So to the three or four people who keep vandalizing this page with their propaganda--please follow Wikipedia guidelines, cite your references, and if you love the breed... for God's sake, stop making false claims. This is a dictionary, not a fairytale where you can make your wishes about bogus “scientific evidence” come true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.231.66 ( talk • contribs) 22:02, January 5 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of "bogus “scientific evidence”, can anyone ANYWHERE come up with one shred of "scientific evidence" proving Silver Labs are NOT pure bred Labrador Retrievers?
Apparently no one can substantiate the "fact" that the original kennel where silvers were first reported in the US kept Wiemers. I'll attribute that as another anti-silver "fairytale". Or should I say fairy-tail?
Do you really expect anyone to believe AKC would register silver labs as AKC registered Labrador Retrievers if AKC was not dead positive they were pure bred? Particularly after AKC spent the time and money to send out field investigators (twice) to inspect all the known ancestors of silver labs; and those AKC investigators went all the way back to the black Lab ancestors of silver labs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.71.118 ( talk • contribs) 05:38, February 19, 2007 (UTC)
Silver Labs can, and do, enter shows. Because Silver Labs carry AKC registration — they are eligible for an AKC sanctioned show. However, once entered, the objectivity of the judging will undoubtedly be slanted. Then again, the bias of show judges is legendary, and show judges displayed that same bias against Choc Labs for decades. I suggest you go directly to AKC for clarification of your misconception(s).silverlab 65.73.71.53 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again the anti-silver faction thinks either AKC or the silver breeders need to prove silvers are purebred, when only the anti-silver last ditch hold-outs are claiming silvers are not pure bred Labs. If you antis think you can set aside your ignorance and anti-silver bias long enough to attempt an understanding of genetics, try deciphering ( http://www.biomedcentral.com/home). That research gives a very good genetic analysis of genetic color coat migration in K-9s. Silver Labs are pure bred labs, and the only ones claiming otherwise are a small group of elitists who want to dictate THEIR ignorance and bias to the majority of Lab owners and breeders.silverlab 65.73.71.53 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll interpret your last statement as a concession that you are either incapable of understanding the genetics of what produces a silver coat in pure bred Silver Labrador Retrievers (( http://www.biomedcentral.com/home); or you are unwilling to admit that you are incorrect, and simply trying to protect your financial investment by slandering legitimate Silver Labrador breeders. Silver lab 65.73.71.77 23:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no proof that Silver Labs are unpure, and I have owned over 12 in my life, alongside of yellows, blacks & chocolates. Our Kennel IS proof they are IDENTICAL in behavior. So anti-silver breeders, give it up. Your argumnt ended in the late 90s and is old news. Silver labs are owned all over the world as many kennels have sold to places outside the U.S. for over a DECADE. Our kennels is proof of this. I'm not here to promote our kennel, I'm here to say that there is no debate about the silver being unpure. All your links you keep linking to are sites that YOU create that have NO basis. So you are jeopardizing Wikipedia's credibility by placing misleading & false information up about silver labs--there are over 50 kennels in the US alone that sell these! And they've existed for decades! Predjudice towards dog coat colors?! Come on, wake up. That soundsl like a caveman's belief. next thing you know you'll be telling me certain labs from certain regions are unpure because of their environment. Where does it end?
Silver Lab breeders: You know you're being deceitful, and if you honestly cared for the Labrador breed you would not continue to dupe people with the notion of the silver Labrador. You are the only breeders that breed for color and color alone. If these dogs hold merit, why don't you push to make a new breed--call these dogs the California Retriever or something. Everyone knows they're Weimeraners.... I just hope you are unsuccessful in destroying the breed before science can evolve to the point where this fact can be detected.
The appearance and variations sections are quite lengthy and not well focussed. Hopefully tagging the article as "cleanup" will address these and gain review of the rest of the text in general. FT2 ( Talk | email) 12:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
In the history section it states:
and also
Would these sentences be better if combined somehow? Any volunteers? FT2 ( Talk | email) 12:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
We have 3 sections now (I just added one I'm afraid!) covering field v. show, English v. American, and "Physical lines and variants".
This is daft. We need to merge or handle this aspect better.
Any proposals anyone? FT2 ( Talk | email) 13:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
An editor has been blocked using range blocks of a week at a time, due to persistent article and talk page vandalism.
See AN/I entries dates: 03:05, 4 February 2007 (FT2) and 03:13, 4 February 2007 (Pilotguy). FT2 ( Talk | email) 03:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I received the following from user:Silverlabrador by email:
The info about silver labs currently on your site(s) is dead wrong and certainly not neutral. I've corrected it numerous times over the past few months and it keeps getting redone, and redone with extreme bias. If these anti-silver experts who are responsible for these intentional distortions (and flat out lies) are so set on producing facts, I (as well as about a million other Lab owners) would like to read the name of this phantom "US-based kennel where "silver" Labradors initially were reported kept Weimaraners in the kennel"; or see one FACT which proves silver labs are NOT pure bred Labradors. By no stretch of the imagination would AKC have registered silver labs as "pure bred Labrador Retrievers" unless AKC was dead positive all the lineage (which they personally inspected all the way back to black) was "pure bred Labrador Retriever" (AKC has stated this on the record). All I read on this "fact sheet" is hearsay and jealousy by breeders who can not sell their Labs. What you are posting is wrong and you are doing a disservice to legitimate Labrador owner and breeders of silver labs
Please refer to website silverlabradorinfo.com for more information about silver labs. silverlabrador |
My response so far is as follows:
Hi, and thanks for the email.
It would certainly have been helpful to discuss and make points on Wikipedia. Instead you edited others words to say things that they didn't say, both on the article and on the talk page. That is Vandalism, and for that your account has been blocked. I am happy to discuss the isues of silver labradors with you by email, though. If there is legitimate information then that's important. But your history (as far as I have seen it) is someone who fabricates quotes and changes others quoted words to suit yourself. So it will be others words I trust, not just your own (unsupported) claims. Let's take your points one at a time:
I have also read the werb site you linked to -- thank you. Again, some questions:
Thanks for the help, these are my initial questions. |
FT2 ( Talk | email) 13:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
All those questions were answered in detail. Why have you failed to post the answers? Silver lab
The Labrador Retriever Club is exactly what its name implies, i.e., a CLUB; and that "club" is a group of elitist which represents less than .1% of Labrador Retriever owners and breeders throughout the world. Yet the LRC feels they, and they alone, should be able to impose their self-grandizing "standards" (which are based solely on their financial involvement) on the remaining 99.9% of Labrador Retriever owners and breeders throughout the world. In the over all context of the Labrador Retriever community (and a great pun), this is a prime example of the tail trying to wag the dog.
The AKC originally issued AKC registrations listing "silver" as a recognized color for the Labrador Retriever (I have several silver color certifications issued by AKC). In the late 80s, the AKC relented to pressure from special interest breeders of non-silver Labs (read that as breeders with huge financial interests such as the LRC), and decided to call silver labs chocolate labs. By any stretch of the imagination, this is an incredible example of denial. I am personally certain the AKC will eventually have to revert to their earlier acceptance of silver as a common color of choice for AKC registered Labrador Retrievers; they had to do it for chocolate, and they will have to do it for silver. silverlab 65.73.71.89 16:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Added some new pictures of Labrador Retrievers ... please feel free to add more. Kumarrrr 12:53, 18 February 2007 (GMT)
The references section for this article needs serious clean-up; mostly for consistency between how the entries look, and perhaps also for relevancy concerning what they support. Also, many of the sources appear several times.
Furthermore, I am a bit concerned by the number of links to sites for private breeders. Most breeders of any dog will, by default, know quite a bit about their breed, but the truth is their websites just might not make the greatest of sources here. In particular is one called "Endless Mountain" that is continuously added into the article, which among things, claims that opposite-sex pairings of labs work "100%" of the time, and that "show-bred" labs are more responsive in the field. Considering the "American" lines are indeed bred for working, and that the dogs are chosen out for their hunting and trial responsiveness, this latter claim almost borders on the bizarre. Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 03:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
May often be confused with a yellow labrador; turns out it's a cross between a golden retriever & labrador retriever. Maybe some info could be filtered in or an article created. I'd do it myself, but, tho I grew up with a golden labrador (Hamish, v good-natured), these days I'm more of a cat person... Cheers! Hakluyt bean 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be a consistent approach to capitalization of the word "lab" when used in mid-sentence. I'm not sure which is correct, I just see it both ways in the same article. Hopefully someone knows how it should be and can correct it so it is consistent throughout the article.
Mungk 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
How long is the interval of each heat period of an average female labrador? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.1.53.38 ( talk) 01:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
Isn't Comet (from Full house) actually a Golden retriever, not a labrador? 147.76.180.135 23:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
"The coat of the black Labrador is solid black, with no white markings allowed except for a small spot on the chest." This, of course, makes it sound like labs are born in a factory, with managers determining whether the product meets specifications or not before putting them on store shelves. Celedor15 23:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the "Silver Labs" sub-section from this article's external links, because all of these pages are currently linked from the references section. WP:EL suggests that sites that have been used as references should be linked in a references section, not an external links section. -- Muchness 11:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's get some references that are reliable and solid, AKC sites, research in peer-reviewed journals on silver labrador retrievers or don't include the information, please. How is this website a reliable source, for example? [1] What are the qualifications of the web site author that show he/she is an authority? I removed the one bad link, and the sentence it referenced--please find a live link or another stable and reliable reference, not just someone's website commentary, before reinserting it, and verify all the links, thanks. KP Botany 05:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Once again, the Weim/Lab (aka Silver Lab) mutt nuts are including false information and make-believe scientific studies that cannot be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.230.115 ( talk) 03:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Notable for the breed, needs a section. FT2 ( Talk | email) 21:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
... as a result of repeated posting of personal attacks by IP-hopping anon editor. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL to understand what is wrong with this. As a result, this page may not be edited by anonymous editors or new accounts for a brief period. - Alison ☺ 02:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have a couple of pictures of a full-blooded white and full-blooded yellow labs. Is there anyway I could edit the LAB page and put these pics up? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbb22 ( talk • contribs)
I want to add the cross-breed of Beagles and Labs to the page - Beagladors. I have one and have recently encountered several, it is believable that they are an up and coming breed that will be very popular in coming years. I think that they ought to be added to the cross over section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollybugs ( talk • contribs) 06:17, July 7, 2007
Mollybugs, if you want to add Beagladors, be sure that first you have at least one reliable source discussing beaglodors in the context of labradors. -- SmokeyJoe 01:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that we should leave out all the silly portmanteau cross-breeds, A "beaglador" is not a breed. Exception might be labradoodle which was originally bred for a specific purpose - hypoallergenic guide dogs. Although the fashion for portmanteau dogs has interferred with that original purpose.
Is it standard to have quotes with the footnoted reference? I've never seen that done before, and it seems a bit odd to me, as most are linked to a webpage where the quoted content can be found anyway. -- Jude. 01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
(Removed from RFC, list created, seems fairly non controversial).
As both the UK and US's most popular dog breed, and also one of the most popular service dog breeds, there are a fair number of genuinely notable and famous labradors listed in the article.
I've just added "Lucky and Flo", twin Black labs who were the first dogs to perform a counterfeit DVD raid and first dogs to be awarded Malaysia's "outstanding service award", who were widely reported in the media. There are a lot already and will be more. This causes an undue weight problem in that the article is becoming (or will probably become) somewhat unbalanced towards this growing list.
There are already a fair number of notable entries in the list, enough to justify a "list of" article. Would anyone have an objection to (or comments on) moving these to a more suitable article List of famous Labradors? Thanks! FT2 ( Talk | email) 12:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is well organized, and overall in very good shape. There's a couple of major gaps in referencing that really need to be taken care of prior to GA status; notably:
The reference formatting should be fixed. Inline citations should not just include a link, but also full citation information; author (if applicable), title, where it was published, date of publication, date of retrieval (if it's available as a web link). It's also unnecessary to actually include the text of the reference in quotes in each listing; let people click on the links and just tell us where you got it from. For more information on reference formatting, go to WP:CITE.
The sentence "Because of this it is good practice that Labradors are microchipped," is suggesting doing something that some owners might consider controversial, which is a violation of WP:NPOV.
The images all look good. The image under 'color' is very small, and hard to see. It could be increased in size a bit. The image tag of President Clinton & Buddy is missing the ARC identifier in the National Archives.
The article needs a good copyedit, to fix a couple of minor grammatical errors in the language; particularly in the earlier parts of the article.
Other than these minor issues, the article looks great! I'll put this on hold at WP:GAC until these issues are fixed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 02:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The article, as it stands, is in great shape. A few little things remain prior to GA, but overall, a big improvement. I made a few minor changes to the grammar and reference formatting. With regard to the quotes within references, while there's nothing in wikipedia's manual of style expressly forbidding it, it's generally a bit unorthodox and unnecessary to do so, in the wiki as well as in print. Generally, it's only necessary to include the information required to find the article that you are citing information from -- beyond that, there's these large buildings in many cities called "libraries", where people can go to actually read material and references. Including a link to the reference makes the process of physically going to the library often unnecessary, so that's good. Plus, if a link is available, just click on the link to read the full info, not just a quote -- including the quote also tends to increase the page size on the wiki article for downloading, too.
The history section looks good. The part about labradors being mostly found in cities like Moscow & Riga seems to be somewhat Russia-centric, and somewhat contradicts later data indicating that the UK & US have the largest labrador registrations; I can't imagine that large a shift in the labrador population between 1980 & the present day? I am also not sure of the validity of the statement regarding Tatiana Dimitriu? Who is she? Is she an expert on labradors? Her name is not mentioned in the corresponding reference #13, so where did this come from?
The other major issue is the new 'popularity and numbers' section, which to me, seems to be listing and stating some rather trivial and subjective information, mainly in a list form. So it looks kind of like a trivia section in disguise. While the popularity is cited, it seems like very trivial and subjective information. Specifically, the source for 'most popular dog in the world' only goes to a very sketchy source on dogbreedz.com (while I'm not challenging dogbreedz.com, it is not clear how that site came across this specific information -- was it their survey? someone else's? did they look at and compare kennel registries?), dating back to 1991. However, the demographics information and table is interesting and notable. I wonder if the section could be improved by (a) rewriting the bulleted list as prose; (b) changing the title of the section to 'demographics'; or possibly (c) moving the whole section to near the end of the article, as it doesn't seem quite as important as some of the sections that follow it?
These are the only real major issues that remain. Other than that, the article is very close to GA,... Cheers! Dr. Cash 06:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
First, a much thanks to the editors who seem to have picked up the baton on this and gone cite-fixing! Much, much valued! Nice work!
I'm a little concerned some valuable information is being removed though. I'd like to double check that aspect while its current, if possible.
A lot of the cites removed fall into 2 categories, cites that included relevant text quotes, and multiple-cites reduced to one cite.
Some examples on specific edits:
The cite fixing is great and appreciated, it's nicely done. But can we discuss issues like the above to clarify some form of view on it? Thanks!
(And I'd be fine RFCing it, if we need more input.)
FT2 ( Talk | email) 00:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hiya,
Meantime to reiterate - thanks a million for the help on this. The last 10% of getting it to GA quality is good to have help on :) Look forward to seeing if we can polish up the last few issues on this article.
One question, can you review carefully the stats in the second half of the "popularity" section? Do the sources seem reliable and well-represented to you? The issue here is "registrations" vs. "living individuals" and so on. A second set of eyeballs to double-check would be valued. FT2 ( Talk | email) 09:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)