Talk:Rottweiler/Draft

Carting helps one breeder win hearts and educate a community Rebecca Wallwork. AKC Gazette. New York: Dec 2006.Vol.123, Iss. 12; pg. 26, 2 pgs (describes a private breeders attempts to show dog in good light-dogs do carting at charity events, all puppies sold with provision owner must Pollock's Asgard Rottweilers contract requires puppy buyers to complete obedience classes and to earn their CD and AKC Canine Good Citizen® certificate on the dogs by the time they are 25 months.)

refs?

Davies DR, Irwin PJ. Degenerative neurological and neuromuscular disease in young rottweilers. J Small Anim Pract. 2003 Sep;44(9):388-94. PMID 14510327

Braund KG, Toivio-Kinnucan M, Vallat JM, Mehta JR, Levesque DC. Distal sensorimotor polyneuropathy in mature Rottweiler dogs. Vet Pathol. 1994 May;31(3):316-26. PMID 8053126

Gareth Leng 11:35, 22 February 2007 (CST)

Look specialised to me. Are these better suited to an article on Dog health?

Are these conditions specific to Rottweilers? My guess is that these would be conditions seen in a variety of dog breeds?

Aleta Curry 16:38, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

Confused on capitalising

John, "Rottweiler" is a proper name. Why all the lower case? Is that the way it's done at CZ? Also, a lot of linking, which has been complained about regarding another article. Point me to the rule(s), please. Aleta Curry 16:47, 30 September 2007 (CDT)

I used 'Rottweiler' to refer to the breed itself, and 'rottweiler' for examples of the dogs. What article has been complained about? See Do link to nonexistent articles. John Stephenson 07:12, 2 October 2007 (CDT)

Don't want to sound like I'm tattling. I'll just say that the section above the one you cite, "Link Copiously but relevantly" or something like that, was most helpful. Aleta Curry 18:18, 11 October 2007 (CDT)

High priority

This is a high priority Google search item. --Larry Sanger 17:01, 11 October 2007 (CDT)

Yes, Larry. From my point of view, this is good-to-go for a first approval (with a couple of capitalisation fixes). But I'm not an editor. Shall I drop a note to the biologists? Aleta Curry 17:11, 11 October 2007 (CDT)

It needs some slight cleanup toward the bottom I think before it gets approved. --Robert W King 17:15, 11 October 2007 (CDT)

Oh, right, Rob--I presume you mean with formatting? That's easily done by someone who knows how, and I don't think that should hold up the request for approval process.

If it's a content issue, would you please specify what you think is wrong/needs improvement?

Thanks!

Aleta Curry 17:25, 11 October 2007 (CDT)

Just formatting. --Robert W King 18:10, 11 October 2007 (CDT)

There are two sections that need to be either written or deleted or what as there is content missing for both. Also there are sections that still need major work or input. --Robert W King 18:26, 11 October 2007 (CDT)

Given that this has high Google ranking (how have we determined this?), it occurs to me that many sections of this article are idiosyncratic and are badly in need of re-writing, although a good amount of the material here can serve as a fine starting point. I've re-done the intro to where I am quite happy with it, at least. If folks want to be put a concerted effort into whipping this article into shape, and getting it approved (by whom?), let's do it.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:26, 12 October 2007 (CDT)

anthropomorphism?

"Female rottweilers are not delicate, but do have a more feminine appearance than males." If that isn't anthropromorphism, I dunno what is.... Hayford Peirce 19:00, 11 October 2007 (CDT)

Yep, plain as day. A physical description should substitute. BTW, I am tying to get this image released under an open license.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 20:34, 11 October 2007 (CDT)

Well, it may be "plain as day" to you boys, but you're both wrong. The original author was right. Anthropormorphism or not, breed standards often describe dogs as having a "masculine" or "feminine" appearance. I think this is probably because the humans who do the selective breeding know what this means. Dogs can be strong and robust and still look "feminine"; it's an important distinction. Make your peace with the issue now, it will recur. Aleta Curry 17:23, 12 October 2007 (CDT)

"The Acme Kennel Club describes bla-bla-dogs as having a 'masculine' appearance" - that sort of thing is fine, but we ought not otherwise fall in line with it.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 18:48, 12 October 2007 (CDT)

It would be permissible to use these terms as long as they are in quotes, and clearly cited as coming from a source such as you have mentioned. Otherwise you will have to take into account the fact that an educated reader, ignorant of the byeways of dogdom, coming across "masculine" and "feminine" in this article, will instantly cry "anthropomorphism!" and curl his lordly lip in disdain. Which, of course, we don't want. (PS -- I originally stuck an unnecessary "r" into this ridiculously long word.) Hayford Peirce 19:07, 12 October 2007 (CDT)

It's a hideous word, Hayford, often used by dog fanciers when decrying anti-tail docking legislation and such. (I did notice your 'r' by the way. I'll probably always stick one in, now!) On the other hand, it's a great word when describing a Coolidge painting.

Well, I do take your point, but I still have to edit this--even if I bow to quotes. The problem with inverted commas is that they're a backhand insult if used injudiciously. Masculine and Feminine are bona fide descriptors in animal fancy, and afficionados would know that, educated (in the sense of 'formally instructed') or not. In fact, not to exhibit distinct dimorphism with masc./fem. traits confused is a fault in some breeds--and it may even be disqualifying in Rottweilers, if I'm not mistaken. You'll just have to take my word for it that a disqualifying fault is a VERY BIG DEAL.

As to the "educated" reader--sniff! There are plenty of newspaper-of-record reading folks who insist on referring to that poor deceased lady as "Princess Diana". And if just one more "eddicated" person attempts to correct me over "My husband and me...." or "I feel bad" I shall hit him over the head with an anthropomorphic dog statue!

Aleta Curry 20:23, 12 October 2007 (CDT)

Interesting debate here. We seem to be in the realms of political correctness, rather than reality. It is a fact of [human] life, that we tend to anthropomorphise everything around us: this is the basis of children's cartoons depicting inanimate objects, animals, etc etc. That dog-breeders/fanciers should exhibit normal human behaviour is hardly surprising: the only question is, "should an encyclopedia use the same terms as dog-breeders?". My response is, apart from the condescending quotation marks suggested, you try to express these ideas in any other way. You cannot, for exactly the reason you complain about, which is that the whole issue is anthropocentric! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 20:44, 12 October 2007 (CDT)

I'm satisfied with Hayford's compromise solution.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 21:10, 12 October 2007 (CDT)

Agreed, that looks good, and we can keep using it! Aleta Curry 21:49, 12 October 2007 (CDT)

need better referencing before Europe subsection

References are completely lacking in the origins section. Things like the "red tile roof" and some things mentioned in the middle ages clearly need some kind of reference. If need be, you can name your references and use them multiple times while only listing them once at the bottom. David E. Volk 15:49, 13 November 2007 (CST)

Hi David. The "you" to whom you refer (author) has left the project. I'll see what I can do. Aleta Curry 17:27, 13 November 2007 (CST)

modest suggestions for approval

If one of the authors could make the following small corrections, I think this article is ready for approval. 1) in the North America section, "began" is mistyped (egan) 2) change photo, left to photo right? 3)in the Field Test section, split the lone sentence into two sentences right at ... and Rottweillers 4)Legislation - make explicit by saying legislation banning them or requiring expensive insurance or whatever 5) the word Rottweiller needs to be capitalized in at least two spots, one is in a subsection heading, and another just above the references. They may be others, do a search to find out. 6) in the breeding section, possibly remove the parenthetical remarks about the dog knowing the author, etc.

I can nominate the article for approval upon completion of items 1 & 3-5. Items 2 & 6 are only for your consideration. David E. Volk 11:45, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

Okay, this has largely been addressed except for 2, which I don't understand and will ask at David's talk page, and 6, which I have an idea about. I rather like the parenthetical info there, it's a good idea, e.g. for a youngster reading this to know that the photographer is known to the dam, as it is *not* a good idea for a stranger to approach a dam with newborn whelps.

I think this is a good candidate for a callout box; I'll see if Messrs Ewen or King can help.

Aleta Curry 20:13, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Chris, that looks great--thanks! Aleta Curry 04:26, 1 April 2008 (CDT)

APPROVED Version 1.0

Discussion for Version 1.0 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

Congratulations Biology and Hobbies workgroups! --D. Matt Innis 19:01, 15 April 2008 (CDT)

By the way, there were some content changes that were made after the approved version that were not included in the approval. If you want them, I will be glad to insert them. I think as long as the nominating editor approves (and it has been properly viewed and copyedited by others), I can put them in. --D. Matt Innis 19:28, 15 April 2008 (CDT)

typo corrected

I corrected what seemed to be a typo in the approved version. Peter changed Meckar River to Neckar River in the draft and since a google search seemed to support Neckar RIver, I changed it. I will be emailing the editor and if there is a problem with this change, please contact me and I will change it back. D. Matt Innis 02:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)