This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New Guinea singing dog article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7Auto-archiving period: 360 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This is what I understand. Let me know if you understand it differently:
---
Vanak et. al., disagree with the long-standing general consensus about them being wild-living.
They do not disagree that the literature contains that long standing general consensus.
V. et. al. in fact confirm that consensus exists in the literature.
They do not question the existence of that long-standing general consensus.
However, they challenge it. They doubt the long-standing general consensus.
They present their evidence and give their reasoning.
They present new DNA evidence that NGSD are genetically closer to New Guinea village dogs than they are to dogs not from the island.
That's different from saying that NGSD ARE village dogs, or that they are not wild.
It means they share a more recent common ancestor with them than with outside dogs.
But they reason that this evidence does kinda make them think NGSD might just have been village dogs, too, and never wild-living, as everyone seems to believe.
But that is not their main point.
Their main point is to disagree with the suggestion in the literature to have halstromi be considered a valid taxon based on their unique features and such.
They are genetically too closely related to other NG dogs for the taxon to be valid, they reason.
They reason that, the fact of the NGSD being part of the same general gene pool as NG village dogs means that halstromi is not valid taxonomy. This is their emphasis.
But that's not all.
Vanek at. al. also have a secondary point apart from their main point about the taxonomy.
They say the general consensus that about them being wild-living might be wrong.
They studied the literature that and were not convinced about them being wild-living dogs.
They read the evidence and claims and it didn't convince them. They point to the genetic similarity to the village dogs.
They say there's not enough evidence to conclusively establish as fact that NGSD did or do live as wild animals.
We simply don't have enough proof of them being wild dogs, from what's available.
They reason that, if they're most closely related to NG village dogs, that's reason to suspect that maybe they were just village dogs themselves, too, not wild-living dogs after all.
They say it's still possible they were/are just highland village dogs, and not wild-living dogs.
And so the general consensus, which they confirm exists, might be wrong about that, in their judgement. --- Is that correct? Chrisrus ( talk) 21:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The name of this article is New Guinea singing dog, however that is not the common name that its scientific namer gave to it. Troughton named the dog Canis hallstromi in 1957 in his work "A new native dog from the Papuan Highlands". Later in 1971, his next work on it was titled "The early history and relationships of the New Guinea Highland dog (Canis hallstromi)". No mention of singing dogs. Recently an editor has added the name "New Guinea Highland dog" to the lead, and I concur. Given the recent media coverage regarding the latest find, I believe this term will become more popular. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Most of what I can hear is people trying to howl like them. I can't pick out what's dog and what isn't.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New Guinea singing dog. 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) 01:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I am replacing the current subspecies box with a dog breed box as per WP:BRD. My reasoning is:
I understand that this is unusual, but we are dealing with an unusual case. Happy to discuss further. William Harris • (talk) • 11:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New Guinea singing dog article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7Auto-archiving period: 360 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This is what I understand. Let me know if you understand it differently:
---
Vanak et. al., disagree with the long-standing general consensus about them being wild-living.
They do not disagree that the literature contains that long standing general consensus.
V. et. al. in fact confirm that consensus exists in the literature.
They do not question the existence of that long-standing general consensus.
However, they challenge it. They doubt the long-standing general consensus.
They present their evidence and give their reasoning.
They present new DNA evidence that NGSD are genetically closer to New Guinea village dogs than they are to dogs not from the island.
That's different from saying that NGSD ARE village dogs, or that they are not wild.
It means they share a more recent common ancestor with them than with outside dogs.
But they reason that this evidence does kinda make them think NGSD might just have been village dogs, too, and never wild-living, as everyone seems to believe.
But that is not their main point.
Their main point is to disagree with the suggestion in the literature to have halstromi be considered a valid taxon based on their unique features and such.
They are genetically too closely related to other NG dogs for the taxon to be valid, they reason.
They reason that, the fact of the NGSD being part of the same general gene pool as NG village dogs means that halstromi is not valid taxonomy. This is their emphasis.
But that's not all.
Vanek at. al. also have a secondary point apart from their main point about the taxonomy.
They say the general consensus that about them being wild-living might be wrong.
They studied the literature that and were not convinced about them being wild-living dogs.
They read the evidence and claims and it didn't convince them. They point to the genetic similarity to the village dogs.
They say there's not enough evidence to conclusively establish as fact that NGSD did or do live as wild animals.
We simply don't have enough proof of them being wild dogs, from what's available.
They reason that, if they're most closely related to NG village dogs, that's reason to suspect that maybe they were just village dogs themselves, too, not wild-living dogs after all.
They say it's still possible they were/are just highland village dogs, and not wild-living dogs.
And so the general consensus, which they confirm exists, might be wrong about that, in their judgement. --- Is that correct? Chrisrus ( talk) 21:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The name of this article is New Guinea singing dog, however that is not the common name that its scientific namer gave to it. Troughton named the dog Canis hallstromi in 1957 in his work "A new native dog from the Papuan Highlands". Later in 1971, his next work on it was titled "The early history and relationships of the New Guinea Highland dog (Canis hallstromi)". No mention of singing dogs. Recently an editor has added the name "New Guinea Highland dog" to the lead, and I concur. Given the recent media coverage regarding the latest find, I believe this term will become more popular. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Most of what I can hear is people trying to howl like them. I can't pick out what's dog and what isn't.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New Guinea singing dog. 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) 01:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I am replacing the current subspecies box with a dog breed box as per WP:BRD. My reasoning is:
I understand that this is unusual, but we are dealing with an unusual case. Happy to discuss further. William Harris • (talk) • 11:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)