Talk:German Shepherd/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about German Shepherd. 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

Archive 4

Archive 5

I have a huge point of view issue with this article. the temperament section reads like an advertising brochure. The facts are that german sheppards are known to attack children. http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/Files/Information/Compare.pdf suggests that sheperds are one of the more dangerous dog breeds. You might think that they are 'poorly trained' but that's your opinion, the facts are that this breed attacks humans and it should be reflected on wikipedia.

There have been several global jurisdictions that have banned the german shepard, and i think this article needs to explore why that is. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=german+shepherd+banned&btnG=Search&meta= Obviously this article has been written by German Sheppard lovers. It's time it was reformed to reflect truth. It is the opinion of New Zealand Kennel Club that this dog might be all right, but this is clearly a contested issue and the article needs to reflect this --124.168.45.182 (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The PDF doesn't indicate anything about Shepherds attacking children but rather that (I'll focus on 1999 as it's the most recent) 18% of attacks were on children and that Shepherds are in third place for the breed "more like [sic] to attack people", but are also in third place for the Most Common Breed - note the correlative statistic there. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also - "bite / attack" statistics usually include provoked and unprovoked incidents. In other words - if someone broke into my house and was attacking me - my GSD would defend me yet it would be considered an "attack" by my dog according to the statistics. Many GSDs are trained and sold as protection dogs and while they would not attack a pack (family) or a friend of the pack, they would defend against an aggressor.

German Shepherds are EXTREMELY popular in Russia and ex-USSR! i just wanted to say this ) --KpoT (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary Review

Although this article is close to good status, it isn't quite there yet. There are some problems with reaching a neutral tone in the article, and some of the images need to be related better to the topic. One image needs to be justified or deleted to correct a fair-use problem. Given these problems, the article is not yet ready to be promoted, but given its overall quality, it is not reasonable to fail it immediately. Therefore, it will be on hold for at least a week to allow time for improvement, with particular attention to the following items (subject to further discussion):

Correct the four run-on sentences identified below, along with any others that may be present and not specifically listed.
Correct or eliminate as many weak references ("it is believed that . . . .", and similar phrasing) as can reasonably be corrected.
Improve coverage of the breed's reputation for aggression, with a focus on maintaining overall neutrality. This may include properly-sourced quotes or information to refute the reputation, but should include at least some explanation that the reputation exists, and any basis for it.
Provide an acceptable fair-use rationale (at the image page) for attaching the photograph of Geraldine Dodge to this article, or remove the image from the article entirely.
Rewrite and expand the photo captions as required in order to connect them more definitely with the text.

Writing Style

The prose is mostly clear, and grammar and spelling are good, but there are some style problems. For example, ". . . the breed is among the top most registered in most registries." The phrasing most registered in most registries sounds redundant. Could this be rephrased to something like, ". . . the breed is among the most registered."?

Resolved as proposed. Morrand (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

References to "The Kennel Club," though they seem to be technically correct as that is the name of the organization, should specify the UK Kennel Club in order to avoid confusion with others. One photo refers to "The Kennel Club (UK)" and that may demonstrate the best solution.

Resolved by explicit reference to the English Kennel Club with appropriate wikilink. Morrand (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There are several comma splices in the article. In each case, and I am quoting my old grammar text here, there are two main clauses linked by only a comma. For example:

"When the English Kennel Club first accepted registrations for the breed in 1919 fifty-four dogs were registered, by 1926 this number had inflated to over 8,000."
"The breed was named as such due its original purpose of assisting shepherds in herding and protecting sheep, at the time all other herding dogs in Germany were referred to by this name — they thus became known as Altdeutscher Schäferhunds or Old German Shepherd Dogs.
"The breed was officially renamed by the Kennel Club to 'Alsatian Wolf Dog', this name also was adopted by many other international kennel clubs."
"The ears are large and stand erect, open at the front and parallel, they often are pulled back during movement."

In each case, the run-on sentence should either be split up, or one main clause subordinated to the other, in order to improve clarity. For example, write, "The ears stand large and erect, open at the front and parallel. They often are pulled back during movement." Or, "The ears . . . the front and parallel, but they often are pulled back . . . ."

Resolved, generally, but I think there are still a few tweaks to be made to the punctuation to clean the sentences up. Not a serious problem, though; I can take a stab at it. Morrand (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The lead section unambiguously defines the subject of the article. It does not establish the notability of the subject in the first sentence, but it does later in the lead paragraph. The lead includes citations; perhaps, more than necessary, but this is not a fault (per WP:LEADCITE). The article is around 24 KB (3150 words) for which a two-paragraph lead would be appropriate per WP:LEAD. However, the current lead seems to do the job adequately and wouldn't disqualify the article for GA status.

The layout is acceptable. The use of sections and subsections in "History" is good, but some subsections under "Description" seem too short, and it may be better to combine those. "Temperament", "Health," etc. are short, but probably justifiably so because they are distinct topics. Appendices are in correct order per MoS. Images are positioned well, though from "Description" through "Health" there seem to be so many that they are out of position with the text.

There is some jargon, though generally linked out to a definition (withers, for example) and in the context is appropriate (in this case, as an indirect quote of a Kennel Club standard).

"It is believed that careless breeding has promoted disease and other defects," without stating by whom, is not a good construction. The guide at WP:WEASEL is a wreck right now, so I can't point to that in good faith, but its basic point—that phrases like "it is believed that . . ." tend to undermine neutrality—still seems to be valid.

Resolved with room for improvement. The current wording ("Critics believe that . . .") is not an enormous improvement on its own here; however, in combination with the citation, it works. This is one area for future expansion and improvement: summarize the positions on both sides in slightly more detail. Morrand (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy

This article has many, many references. The reference format closely follows the style guide for shortened footnotes. Just about every sentence--in some cases, every phrase--is cited in-line from somewhere, and while that is encouraged by the Manual of Style, condensing the footnotes would help improve readability. One exception to the ample referencing is at the end of the "In Popular Culture" section, where there are no citations given. There are wikilinks to the appropriate articles, though, so that suffices.

I did not find any original research in the article, and the regular editors seem to be actively eliminating it as it comes up. With all of the citations given, there seems to be no room for original research anyway.

Broad Coverage

The article defines the breed and gives some examples of its importance, which address most aspects of the topic (but see below under "Neutrality"). It stays close to topic, with little to no wandering of focus. Summary style is used well to avoid excursions (for example, by linking out to the dysplasia articles rather than explaining dysplasia in this article).

Neutrality

The article does not appear to be acceptably neutral. For example: ". . . the appendage 'wolf dog' caused discontent after media capitalised on the name to run a scare campaign advertising that 'half-wolves' had been let loose in Britain." It seems true that the dogs are not half-wolves (as explained further in the Talk page) but as worded (capitalised, scare campaign, advertising) this is not acceptably neutral. An alternative: ". . . as the name, 'wolf dog,' led many people to believe that Alsatian wolf dogs were wolf-dog hybrids" (assuming the reference supports this interpretation).

Current version gets around this point by complete elimination of the reason for the name change. This is probably not the ideal solution, and I think an (NPOV) explanation of the change is appropriate to the article. That said, the current version is OK. Morrand (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There also needs to be some coverage of the German Shepherd's reputation for aggression, given how widely it seems to be believed. For example, Cesar Millan (in Cesar's Way) lists German Shepherd Dogs among the breeds often found in shelters after being abandoned by dog-fighters. Even though the reputation is most likely undeserved, it does need to be addressed in the article body, just as it was addressed on the Talk page. The most reputable source that I could find (with a quick search) saying that German Shepherd Dogs are dangerous is the Petcare Information and Advisory Service of Australia (see ). (It would be fair, however, to then explain that GSDs are not inherently dangerous: "Aggression and attacks on people are largely due to poor breeding, handling and training." Dog Breed Information, )

In short, some of the comments in the article Talk, suggesting that the article is tilted towards fans of the breed, appear to be justified, and this is the main concern that keeps me from promoting the article to GA status right now.

The "Aggression" section is about right for addressing this criticism. It is a little sparse right now but seems to touch the main points, which is all the GA criteria requires of it. There is a little copyediting to be done in this section but nothing significant. I'll call this one resolved, noting that there is still plenty of room for expansion. Morrand (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Stability

The article is acceptably stable. Most edits in the past thirty days seem to have been vandalism and subsequent reverts. There has been some editorial debate on the talk page, but it does not seem to have escalated to edit warring. On the whole it appears that the article is being edited in a controlled and deliberate manner, which speaks well for its continued stability and its ability to hold Good Article status once it achieves it.

Images

One image is troublesome from a fair-use standpoint. The photo of Geraldine Dodge needs a better fair-use rationale than "low res, no revenue loss" (as given on the image page); to justify a copyrighted photo, it really needs to cover all ten points listed at WP:FU and also needs a rationale that fits under the fair-use criteria there, not just for the article on Geraldine Dodge but also for its appearance here. The image page also doesn't seem to meet WP:IUP because it does not fully explain the ultimate source of the image. As indicated in the copyright template boilerplate as currently worded, use of the image in the article on Ms. Dodge may qualify as fair use; use of that image elsewhere (such as here) may not. There may not be an easy solution to this problem that will allow the photo to stay.

Resolved. Image has been dropped from the article. Morrand (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, the photos accompanying the article are both relevant to the topic and fairly used. Some captions need improvement in order to link the image to the text it illustrates. The first two pictures have good captions that describe both the picture and its relevance to the text, as do the last two. Others do not: the caption, "The Kennel Club (UK) standard. . . ." does not explain how the picture illustrates this, and is not tied into the body text. Ideally the Kennel Club standard being illustrated should be mentioned and explained in the body, if the caption is left as is, or some other method of linking image and text used. Similarly, the image of the child and dog is itself good (not to say "cute,") but needs to be tied back to the article with a longer caption, such as, "Shepherds bond well with children they know," which is taken directly from the text.

The two images noted have been well improved. I notice that the photo of the Shepherd's face is now being used in a more general way than previously: this is fine, since it goes from illustrating something not in the text, to something that needs illustration. The dog-and-child photo's caption is now tied into the text. Resolved. Morrand (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Other Comments

I notice that this article was last reviewed for WikiProject: Dogs on August 13, 2008, and the B-quality rating was maintained at that time. Since this is a recent nomination for GA, it's entirely plausible that the article has been much improved since then, but the two ratings should be reconciled if this does get promoted. I haven't used the WikiProject's guidelines in this review, but would certainly welcome commentary along those lines from any of the project's reviewers.

I'm assuming someone closer to the Project can put in for a re-evaluation if that's warranted. Morrand (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a little disturbing to see that this article doesn't even mention schutzhund. Schutzhund is a HUGE, HUGE part of this breed, as it was and still is used heavily to determine breeding-worthiness. To see it totally omitted is a shame. Bburton (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Police dogs? I was thinking of adding something to the page about german shepherds as police dogs or how german shepherds are so intelligent--Sheller4 (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There's information about their use as police dogs at German_Shepherd_Dog#Use_as_working_dogs and about their intelligence at German_Shepherd_Dog#Intelligence but you are, of course, welcome to expand on that. ~ Ameliorate ! 11:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless I missed it, I didn't see anything about hindquarter angulation being more a trend in the states as opposed to Europe. Before I got my GSD, my mental image of a GSD had the US typical large sloping rear. 97.121.49.167 (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It says the weight for males is betwen like 60 and 90 but most german shepards i know are pushing like 110 and their not fat of anything their just big dogs and there very muscular (although they all came from the same father and the dad is huge so i dont know if that makes a diffrence). OIr maybe thats just show dog weight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.123.156 (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we need sources, rather than personal observation. Most GSDs I know are more like 90-100, but that doesn't mean anything. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
According to the SV standard (FCI accepted, Bundes Sieger standard) - the weight should be: Males 30-40KG (66-88pounds) Females 22KG-32KG (48-70 pounds) (cite: http://www.fredlanting.org/2008/06/sv-standard-translated-by-fred-lanting/ - SV standard translated by Fred Lanting - about halfway down). Larger shepherds seen may be shiloh shepherds (Weight: Males: 100-130 (45-59 kg.) Females: 80-100 pounds (36-45 kg.) - source http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/shilohshepherd.htm)
- Yeah, that seems way low. My Fritzi, for example, is from a line of working dogs (all her siblings are bomb sniffers, for example), a year old, 90 lbs, and about average for her family. Looks like the show standard favors smaller dogs, but dogs that work for a living (or sleep on the floor for a living) might tend larger. "The breed standard" and "reality" don't necessarily coincide. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The article says that German Shepherds have a reputation for aggression along with German Shepherds are responsible for more random bitings than any other breed, and have a known tendency to attack smaller breeds of dogs. Both of these points are extremely subjective. First, only poorly bred, poorly trained, and poorly owned GSDs are aggressive. The only other time they seem aggressive is if someone is watching scutzhund and doesn't know the sport at all.

I know of a GSD who has a "Random bite" on his record. This "random bite" was committed after someone had broken into the owner's home (with malicious intentions) and they threatened the owner. The GSD defended the owner and when the police responded - the perp was taken to the hospital with dog bits and the dog was reported with "a bite incident".

As for smaller / other dogs - my own dog has a dog-on-dog bite on her record. Someone refused to leash their pit bull and it attacked me one day - my GSD jumped in (she was on a leash and I was walking her) and pinned the pit bull. Of course, witnesses only saw the end result - my GSD with her paw on the put bull holding it on the ground before it got up and ran away. My dog got charged with the incident when the police were called - even though people admitted that the pit bull was not on a leash.

Good GSDs are not aggressive in any way - they are highly protective. They are the #1 breed for personal protection and either #1 or #2 in the US for military and police work (net to the malinois) and #2 worldwide for police and military (behind the malinois).

Also - the reporting is misleading. If you have a city of 100,000 people and 50,000 own GSDs and one person owns a different breed - if that one different breed bites 5 people the numbers (according to how it is reported) still would make the GSD look worse if .01% bit someone. The statistics should show bites per dog per breed if they want to make it legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draggar (talk • contribs) 13:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That story is relevant to you, but is, in the end, merely an anecdote. I could also tell you the anecdote of how, on my way to the office today, I rode my bike past a woman walking two German Shepherds. Despite the fact that I was a half dozen feet away, one of them lunged for my calf and tore my pants with its teeth. (Whereupon the owner scolded the dog.) Upon visiting this website, I was not surprised to learn of their aggression. I believe they should be banned. 140.209.23.41 (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, they should not be banned. That lady didn't know how to control her dogs correctly. It's not the dog's fault, it's the woman's. German Shepherds need to be given rules from the start and be socialized properly, or they will become destructive and dangerous. My father owned one, and he was not aggressive. My neighbor owns one, and it is not aggressive. That's because they were socialized properly and given rules from the start. Mokoniki (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Mokoniki

Perhaps rather than a ban, German Shepherd owners should be required to complete some sort of dog training. Anyway, I know this has nothing to do with editing the article, so I'll leave it there. 140.209.23.41 (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The German Shepherd shown in the photograph which accompanies the article has been made to stand in a forced and unnatural stance. I understood that the Kennel Club of Great Britain discouraged this practice because it aggravates the hip problems which some members of the breed are prone to. Regardless of what the Kennel Club think, no normal dog would choose to adopt such a stance. Maybe it would be better to replace the picture with one in which the dog is standing more naturally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with this - I'm sure Max Von Stephanitz (sp?) is rolling over in his grave seeing the destruction being done to their hips - especially in the American (AKC / non-FCI) ring). Look at the initial lines, even up until the 50s or 60s, they're square like the Belgian shepherds. All you need to do is look at any FCI / SV / Seiger standard and you'll see that the back is not supposed to slope that much.

Do you have a source for this information? ~ Ameliorate ! 22:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I can add insight, but I have no source. As far as I know that is a forced position, unless of course the dog was stretching but that's not very likely, they don't really stretch like that. But I don't really think that's the point. I think what the guy mentioned, getting a photo of a more natural stance, is a better alternative than what at least appears to be a forced stance. 74.5.110.177 (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Go for the illustrated standard/s if you want a reference to cite on stance, that "IS" the correct stance or nearly, so, for Showing the GSD worldwide. The rear legs should be 1. the one facing the judge further back, with the hock perpendicular to the ground. 2.The rear leg on the handler's side should have the paw directly underneath the hip joint. Arsdelicata (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And that's the problem. It's a show dog, but when you go after the creator of the breed the working shepherd is the correct version of the breed. I'll see what I can do.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I recently purchased an eight week old german shepard, can anyone tell me when I can expect her ears to be erect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.62.25 (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes i have a GSD just turned 4 months old i was wondering the same question myself. they started to stand completely erect around 3-3 1/2 months —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.33.15 (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It varies, of course. And when they first go up, they won't necessarily do it at the same time, and they won't necessarily stay up for a while either. For quite a long time (in the three to five month old range), Fritzi had one ear up and one ear down, though not always the same. I've read various apocryphal tales such as "coated and longhair shepherds take longer", "bigger pups take longer", and "they go down again around the time the puppy coat blows out." Some possible nonsense about the puppy is spending the energy growing so doesn't have the juice to pump up the ears. However: the more you cuddle and adore the puppy, the more perfect the ears will be. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just remembered -- another tale I read is that their ears sometimes go down again when they start losing their puppy teeth. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, it's really very simple.

The two sentences are these: These claims have been refuted on the basis that German Shepherds represent a higher proportion of the population than other breeds. However, reports indicate that Shepherds are over-represented when the statistics take into account the difference in population.

The first and the second sentences are contradictory. The first says someone (who?) refutes the earlier findings that GSDs bit more often that other breeds, arguing that because there are more GSDs than many other dogs, there are more biting incidents. The second sentence cites a report that contradicts that, saying that *even* allowing for the numbers of GSDs, over-representation isn't a factor, and the prevalence of biting incidents is still high.

Unless there's a citation somewhere making the argument enumerated in the first sentence, then that first sentence is speculation. It's opinion and/or original research, but it's not a fact (even by Wikipedia standards). It's this kind of bad writing and lack of logic that drives anyone who actually knows anything about a subject away from Wikipedia. Cheers, Neale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.210.149 (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It sounds as if there are perhaps two contradictory sources but only one is mentioned here. Since my copy of South Australian Health Commission Injury Surveillance got lost in the mail, I couldn't tell you. Would you like to remove it completely even though it is sourced or change the wording to remove the contradiction? Either way, it would be prudent to see what the actual source says about the issue. Wperdue (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the response I posted on my talkpage, which hopefully clarifies this: Both sentences are backed up by the same source, that's why it was written the way it is. The source says (paraphrasing because I don't have time to dig out the deadtree source at the moment) "German Shepherds, Rottweilers, (and a few other breeds) cause injuries needing medical attention more than any other breed, they are also the breeds with the highest population counts but if we normalise the population they are over-represented". When I wrote that piece of the article I thought it was important to clarify that GSDs have a high population but there are reports that indicate the attacks:population ratio is higher than other breeds. However, it isn't a statement of definite fact that they are overrepresented its merely a statistic worked out in that particular report (the South Australian Health Commission Injury Surveillance Journal). ♣ Ameliorate! 02:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Hopefully, this will clear up the issue regarding the contradictory statement to the other editor's satisfaction. If not, I'll bow out and let things run their course. Wperdue (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am amazed by the poor writing and reference sourcing in this section. A couple references are made to old, Australian-based reports, which include no information about the methodology or validity of the studies. If I have time to do the research I will try, but I imagine there is someone with more knowledge and better acquainted with revising wiki pages than me who could review and update. I think, other than the first sentence, most of the statements here are of questionable integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.243.83 (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why you think that the Medical Journal of Australia, a report by the South Australian Health Commission and a report by the New South Wales Government are "of questionable integrity"? ♣ Ameliorate! 11:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The report from the New South Wales Government offers no methodology or backup statistics that I can tell or find with the reported statistics, which makes it difficult to audit the statistics. Just because a municipal government puts a report on the internet doesn't make it legitimate. Similarly, the Medical Journal report is from 1987 and I haven't been able to locate the reference and I would expect that we could update this research with something within the last 20 years. Same with the South Australian Health Commission report from 1991 - 18 years ago - which is an important one that counters the claim of statistical representation. However, most importantly, you cannot use reports from Australia to generalize or extrapolate statements given a wide-reaching generalization as it is currently written. You could say that GSDs are still over-represented 'in Australia according to an Australian report' and use similar qualifications for the other statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.243.83 (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is much improved now; thanks for the discussion and editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.182.133.214 (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I got the impression, from the aggression section, that we were talking about studies in the U.S.A., when I looked at the sources I saw Australian reports. There really needs to be some clarity regarding where and when the reports came from in the article itself. Due to major advances in dog training, I'd personally ( Not going to speak for anyone else ) be hesitant to believe any study more than ten years old, so I wanted to check the date on the sources. Glad I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolvenmoon (talk • contribs) 18:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This breed is the main police dog in Brazil. For guard dog, the Fila Brasileiro is the most popular dog in Brazil today. Agre22 (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page Not Moved Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

} German Shepherd Dog → German shepherd dog — per WP:NC; dog is not a proper noun. The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 02:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

- Support as nominator. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 02:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Dog names on Wikipedia are those under which they are registered by the various major kennel clubs. The breed German Shepherd Dog is the full name of the breed, and is not meant to show both breed and species of animal. In the standards of which links are hosted in the infobox on the article page, all three words are capitalised. Miyagawa (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Miyagawa. Propaniac (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Just wanted to add this is not the only article on Wikipedia where this is the case. For instance Kangal Dog, Caucasian Shepherd Dog or Portuguese Water Dog. These are all breed names. Dropping the capitalisation is only suitable when they are not, for instance Police dog. When dog is required in the title to disambiguate, it is used like this: Pomeranian (dog). Miyagawa (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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

"This is because the white coat is more visible, making the dog a poor guard dog..." The capability of a dog being able to guard should not be affected by how visible the dog is. Guard dogs do not engage in commando ninja attacks. One could say that a clearly visible dog would make a better guard dog. I think this needs to be looked at unless there is a citation linking visibility to effectiveness of guarding. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It does sound like hooey to me; and that FAQ doesn't seem like a very good source, simply declaring the guard dog thing as a fact with no references to support it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to include something on the continuing UK controversy between The Kennel Club and many of the UK GSD breed clubs and breeders. Is there anyone in the UK that feels they can write something regarding this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.205.166 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

More important -- do you have some reliable sources we can reference regarding this? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:15, 18 March 2010

I googled the phrase "continuing UK controversy between The Kennel Club and many of the UK GSD breed clubs and breeders" and got two pages that seem like respective sources for some information on the issue I think this poster is discussing. It seems like the UK Kennel Club is concerned about health standards and trying to push for improved breeding standards. See: http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/2010/Feb2010/News120210/gsd.htm and http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/4376/kennel-club-lashes-innapropriate-german-shepherd-reps-over-health/ for additional information. I am not sure it is worth incorporating into the Wiki entry, but if others feel differently, feel free to write up a synopsis of the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.243.83 (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm astonished this isn't addressed in the article: there is major controversy in the breed about how the show lines of dog have such sloping backs they are essentially crippled, whereas the working type / non-show lines continue with the straight backs the breed always had with far fewer problems. See: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=2844&d=pg_dtl_art_news&h=244&f=0 where the problem is specifically stated to be "the tackling of unsoundness in the hindquarters of the breed and in particular in the hocks of some dogs". The issue was raised in [Pedigree Dogs Exposed], which catalysed the debate. The documentary also mentioned that the GSD breed is controversial for culling white dogs, however healthy they are. GM Pink Elephant (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Also see: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=2926 GM Pink Elephant (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've written briefly on the subject in the article, but it really needs some pictures to demonstrate the difference between the sloping back and straight back varieties. Has anyone got any?GM Pink Elephant (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The breed has been plagued with this "new" standard of Hyper-activity. However, the classic Shepherd is NOT hyper-active. Many breeders have cross bred with Belgian lines of the Malinois and pass them off as German Shepherds. I have owned a few in my younger life and never recall the dog to be hyper. They were protective, and watchful of strangers, but mellow and calm unless provoked or played with. Don't get me wrong, they loved to play, but did not over do it.

Hi. This talk page isn't for discussion the breed, but rather, for discussing the article. Do you have any well-sourced information regarding the "activity level" of GSDs? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The more I look at that source for longevity, I think we're making a mistake by just copying the numbers. First off, the low end of the lifespan we're using comes from the "vet school data" column, and for every breed, the number in that column is dramatically lower than from all other sources. It makes some sense; these are the ages of dogs that died at vet school hospitals. It doesn't say anything about the normal lifespan of the animals; it speaks solely of dogs that were hospitalized, and naturally that number will come out dramatically low. (Not a lot of healthy animals end up in the vet school hospitals, I would think.) I suggest that the low number be omitted; it's simply not useful as a gauge to animal lifespan. Also, we're using uninterpreted raw data; it's original research for our article to conclude from http://users.pullman.com/lostriver/breeddata.htm that the lifespan of a GSD is 7-10 years. All we can reasonably conclude from it is that the average longevity of animals in vet hospitals is 6.8 years (not a very interesting number, actually), while the average longevity of surveyed animals is 9.7 years -- the number given in the last column in that table. I recommend we stick to the dogs-as-pets-and-working animals numbers, not the dogs-dying-in-vet-hospitals number (since most dogs don't die in pet hospitals.) I'd like it even better if we had a real reliable source, since Wikipedia is about the only source suggesting anything as low as a 6.8 year lifespan. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the bottom number should not be used. Another page on the website discusses how that column is biased. It says "Dogs referred to vet schools often have uncommon conditions or conditions for which treatment is too specialized for most veterinary practices." I looked for reliable sources for the life span and came up with four that I think should be considered reliable.

UK German Shepherd Rescue says 12-15 years
US German Shepherd Rescue says 10-13 years
German Shepherd Dog Club of Victoria says 10-12 years
India Kennels, a breeder, says 9-15 years with an average of 12 years

I think we should use the widest range, 9-15 years, it covers the range of the other 3 sources. All 4 of these sources should be considered experts on the breed and therefore reliable. ~~ GB fan ~~ 09:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Lifespan estimates by breed clubs and breeders are always overinflated when compared to survey data. They should not be used if we have other reliable sources. Excluding the vet school data, the three sources the website lists are the 1999 UK breed survey(10.3 years), 2003 Denmark Kennel Club breed survey(9.0 years) and American German Shepherd Dog Charitable Foundation 2004 Health Survey(median in the 10-11 years age group). In addition to that, Swedish Insurance data from 1995-2000 shows the 10 year survival rate at 49%, so median is just very slightly under 10 years. I think it's fair to state 10 years as the average lifespan. --Dodo bird (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And, since we can just say 9.7 and point to the same source we've been pointing too all along, that's certainly the easiest solution. It's good data, it was just being wrongly used. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Danish data uses 0.5 year intervals and the US data uses 1 year, so stating the average age as 9.7 seems like false precision.--Dodo bird (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that's the data provided by the source. 9.73, actually. We don't get to interpret the data, just cite it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Some defenitely false info in the article

In *Origins*, the first line: In Europe during the 1700 BCE , attempts were being made to standardize breeds.

and later: To combat these differences, the Phylax Society was formed in 1791 with

and: In 1899, Von Stephanitz was attending a dog show when he was shown a dog named Elkein Shekletor. Elkein was 1/4th wolf. Elkein was the ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.93.84 (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed those mentioned above (1800s; 1891; Hektor Linksrhein)
  ---
 Lp  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakiopaalu (talk • contribs) 13:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The article was definetely vandalized, I went back and found some more that was changed and sources were removed, I think I fixed everything. ~~ GB fan ~~ 15:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The part "1/4th wolf" is false, I belive.

Pedigree for Hector:

http://gsdonline.com/bszs/index.php?sz=1 and http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/pedigree/1208.html

His maternal grandfather (Greif (from kennel Sparwasser)) was a white dog, so genetically he was 1/4 white (not in appearance, though; black and gray, not "black and tan" like most of the showline dogs today)

---- Lakiopaalu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakiopaalu (talk • contribs) 11:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong but I read in a book by animal planet that since their ears are pointed up they allow for good air flow and are less prone to ear infection. Also that they are more likely to get dirt in them and should be cleaned once in a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.164.136 (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Over half of the links to breed standards in the infobox are dead links. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contribs. 07:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Not sure whether my note re ANKC is necessary. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears that footnote 8 is not enough to establish that wolves were involved in early breeding of the GSD. See: http://www.asuperiorgsd.com/wolf-dog.html where it distinguishes between an old and a new studbook. The old studbook evidently made explicit mention of wolf stock, and the new studbook seems to have hidden this information. P0M (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Under "History" is says 'Trey was here', but if I go to the edit tab, it says "===History===", so I'm unable to correct the vandalism.194.28.125.14 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Done by another editor. Doniago (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, my first Wikipedia edit.

I have updated the main article photo, I have just edited the sharpness slightly and corrected the colour balance to what I believe is more accurate.

==

LaurenceGough (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This dog was not ".Created by Adolf Hitler to destroy the Jews". The Tag that it is referencing does not even mention anything of this nature. I would edit it myself, but I want to make sure it is done properly> Can someone fix this ignorant mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.71.62 (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Their behavior (alpha monitoring, aggressiveness, intelligence) as well as their look seems sort of wolfish. Were the sort of bred back to exhibit wolf traits?

69.255.27.249 (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

the article already addresses why they were bred. Wickedjacob (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

A "weasel word" notice has been added. I don't see any weasel words. The section is concise, well cited, and accurate. I am going to remove the notice. If it is re-added, please use this talk page to explain your reasoning. Thank you. Wickedjacob (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to let everyone know what I did and why I did it.

First, I restored the old pic of the GSD on the mountain. My logic for this was that the new picture showed a stacked dog on a show field standing over a frisby. This is a less natural setting for the picture and less ideally representative of the breed. It also lacked the visual weight of magnitude of the mountain picture.

Second, I restored the picture of the sables that were deleted without explanation by the same person who changed the picture of the mountain dog. There were no sables represented on the page with that deletion, but most other major colors allowed by the breed standards are represented in the article; saddle black, blanket black, all black, black/red, black/tan, bicolor.

Third, the pictures were scattered randomly throughout the article on the left and right. I moved pics to the right side for clarity.

Fourth, because I couldn't get the pictures that show the toplines of the show dogs vs the working line dogs to work with two pictures, I combined both open source, free use images that existed before into one to allow clarity in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sablegsd (talk • contribs) 08:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Sablegsd. I agree the mountain picture is better representative of the breed, although the dog was a bit too small in the original; I've replaced it with a cropped version to better show the dog. Regarding picture orientation, I think the overriding principal is that articles look better when faces in pictures face towards the text (WP:IMAGELOCATION). So several of these pictures may be better on the left, not necessarily the ones that were on the left before. Regarding toplines, it might have been easier to group the pictures together using {{multiple image}} as described at Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Co-aligning. I think the over-and-under arrangement is more WP:ACCESSible, e.g. for people using mobile phones. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking the "playing" section doesn't belong. It's pretty much material for a how-to guide, and isn't specific to GSD's anyway (many breeds need active play, and some need a heck of a lot more than a GSD.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC) german sheperds are the best dogs in the universe ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.213.220 (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

that could be seen as a good thing. For people with busier lives they could see that GSDs not needing as much play as other dogs as a way of decreasing the stress of having a dogCharlesDCluff (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the title. The Dogs/Dogs breeds taskforce recommends "The article for each breed shall be titled based on the apparently most-common official breed name from the major registries." At the least, the introductory term for the breed should be the official name of the breed. Every authoritative book on the breed, and every Breed Standard in the English-speaking world uses the words "German Shepherd Dog".

Secondly, the first sentence. The definitive article, "The", followed by the partial name of the breed followed by the breed-name translated into German. Because the definitive article is present, the translation into German should follow the normal principles and be "[Der] deutsche Schaferhund", not "deutscher".

Thirdly, other parts of the first paragraph. The name, "Alsatian Wolf Dog", was used for a brief period and is now archaic - used only in a historical context. In the present day, the German Shepherd Dog is not also known as the Alsatian Wolf Dog. The Kennel Club in the UK re-named the breed "Alsatian (German Shepherd Dog)" and later, in 1978, changed it to "German Shepherd Dog (Alsatian)". It is currently "German Shepherd Dog". The use of the breed-name "Alsatian" was not limited to the UK. Canine Control Bodies throughout the world have dealt differently with the naming of the breed.

The German Shepherd Dog is not in the Herding Group in every country around the world. In a few countries, it is in the Working Group.

I don't know how the Article became so badly downgraded: C-Class for quality. On reading the article, I concur with the poor grading. Going through the history and this page, I suggest that the article has been vandalised by pedants to the extent that any substantive contributions are frightened away.

One of the sources cited a number of times, does not exist as far as I can ascertain. If it does exist, it is a little-known book, and may not be authoritative. A search of the ISBN reveals a different book; same publisher, same year, but different title and different author. Conan, Michel (2000). The German Shepherd Handbook. Hauppauge, NY: Barron's. ISBN 0-7641-1332-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.236.146 (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.236.157 (talk)

The article is lacking the very fundamental information that the sheperds breed in former East Germany were very different. The lines had eliminated Hip problems and the dogs were very strongly breed towards power and health. After the Wall fell, both lines started to mix up. Today only very few pure East German lines remain.91.39.123.104 (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right. I have made an attempt to describe different types and styles of GSD, but don't know any reliable sources with a neutral POV apart from a couple of webpages. Any help would be appreciated. 49.181.236.156 (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

One can't start the article with the popular culture, popularity and a history section that is so infinitely long with so many black and white pictures– before the breed standard appearance and temperament. Also, images and galleries are not discouraged, and collectively do have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Galleries are indeed not discouraged, and this is a misunderstanding that still lingers around, since 2005-6. -> Please see also this discussion here, Talk:Charles Marion Russell.

Per WP:IG:

Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. This is typical for dog articles.

Hafspajen (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen and 49.181.236.157 - ~~I have just restored the article back to the version of 04.14 19 April; I am not advocating that this is the correct version but it is taking it back to a stable version~~.

@IP 49.181, please consider registering an account and come to this talk page to discuss changes. You have done a lot of work improving the article but the way to address the concerns Hafspajen raised is to have a discussion on this talk page, not to undo all the work you have undertaken. I have always found Hafspajen to be helpful and willing to discuss matters and he does seem to have tried to initiate discussion here in the section above.

Can we try to work this out here, please? SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Striking part of my comment as I'm not able to restore it. Nevertheless, please discuss changes. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

The following appeared on my talk page whilst I was beginning a section on Elbow Dysplasia schemes:

Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Discuss your changes please before you go back where you were before. Hafspajen (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You may be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors, if you do not discuss your changes on the article talkpages. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Hafspajen (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

LOL, 49.181.236.157 (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC) (formerly User:49.181.236.146)

This is NOT laughing matter, but they are ready made Twinkle warnings, for situations that often happen on Wikipedia. Ask administrator Crisco 1492 not look at this . Hafspajen (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Hafs, I don't think I want to get involved here. IP 49 was clearly making GF contributions, over a long period of time. Furthermore, I don't see any edit warring on the 20th, when these warnings were delivered. Not a single revert until IP 49 decided to remove his/her contributions. Templating like that without actual edit warring is not constructive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Now this is silly. I asked to dicuss thing and some of the things added might be worth keeping. Some not, because there were problems with it. I wanted to avoid an edit war, as so often it is the case with the new editors if you change things, and who obviously is sensitive about they write, right. Yes I think it is a heavy case of Ownership of article, not good, Crisco 1492 . The template if anyone cares to read it, says welcome, and IF YOU will revert you will be in edit war, please let's discuss things. You may be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors, if you do not discuss your changes on the article talkpages. Does anyone care to read things properly? Now s/he is gone. Hafspajen (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to German Shepherd has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have a great picture of my german shephard dog Asko. It would be an honor to share it with the world. FragX (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Post it here, but it has to be a just as good or better quality picture than we already have. Hafspajen (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Or upload it CTF83! 20:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to use shepherd in the name of this dog it should not be "Shepherd" but "shepherd". Since when did the name of this dog count as a proper noun? It should be "German shepherd" not "German Shepherd". Jodosma (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines here seem to agree with you. Only the "G" should be capitalised. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 23:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I wish to engage a discussion, and don't want to make edits without discussing first. But I think that using the AKC breed standard to describe the dog has certain POV problems. The AKC does not own dogdom, they are simply one interest group and many breeders and owners of dogs do not conform to kennel club definitions, which tend to put aestheticism over everything else. This is especially a problem with working breeds, whose talents and character may be more important than appearance alone.

I don't want to take away from the AKC or any other kennel club,they are knowledgeable people, but they are hardly without strong views about how the breed should proceed in the future that isn't necessarily shared by the vast majority of GSD owners. German Shepherds are not a product of the AKC and their's is but one albeit important view of what a German Shepherd - or any other dog - is. So any description of the breed based on AKC aesthetics should be identified as such, as a specific rather than a generalized viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.185.215 (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Shepherd#mediaviewer/File:GermanShep1_wb.jpg

Can we agree that an image that represents the breed better than the current one should be found?

Dogperson3d (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No mention of The Littlest Hobo? 174.91.7.64 (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Done by another editor some time ago. 49.181.236.156 (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Would it be clearer if this section was changed into a list form from the current paragraph form? As an example Rough Collie page uses the list form in this section and I think it's much easier to follow and comprehend than this one. Popular Culture Scientist (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree - the 'In popular culture' sections already too quickly become laundry lists of every piece of trivia. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how the fact that this section is becoming too long relates to whether a list or a paragraphs are clearer. Users can just as easily add new stuff now and there's still the same problem of having to edit and limit what is mentioned here. To me the only difference would be that the list might be easier to follow and keep clean. And is there some definite criteria to what is important enough to be mentioned here? How widely known should the dog mentioned here be?Popular Culture Scientist (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there any real reason German Shepherd redirects here, German Shepherd Dog. Why isn't German Shepherd the location of the article? -Deathsythe (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

German Shepherd Dog is the proper name, just like Belgian Shepherd Dog or Anatolian Shepherd Dog Anna ^talk 18:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that the vast majority of reliable sources don't support this assertion at all. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 09:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that they do and you are completely wrong. The proper title should be German Shepherd Dog with a redirect from German Shepherd. "German Shepherd" obviously refers to a Teutonic herdsman - the "dog" is part of the name...hence the German, "Deutsche Schaferhund". The name in German is not "Deutsche Schafer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.84.7 (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Correct name should be German shepherd not German Shepherd. Jodosma (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved all, boldly assuming that the target for the last move should be White Shepherd. Favonian (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

German Shepherd Dog → German Shepherd
Anatolian Shepherd Dog → Anatolian Shepherd
Georgian Shepherd Dog → Georgian Shepherd
Belgian Shepherd Dog → Belgian Shepherd
White Shepherd Dog → White Shepherd Dog

– The current names are blatant transgressions of WP:COMMONNAME. Most reliable sources, both dog-specialized and general, give the name of the breed as "German Shepherd" or usually as "German shepherd" outside of dog-specific publications (that capitalization fetish is hardly universal, even in dog publications; I don't want to address the capitalization issue at this time, because it's still under discussion at WT:MOSCAPS more broadly, and I doubt consensus will be reached without a site-wide RfC advertised via WP:VPP and WP:CD). "German shepherd dog" (lower case) could make sense in prose, but only when used in a context in which one might misunderstand "German shepherd" as a reference to sheep-herders from Deutschland. It's totally redundant when used with the capitalized version "German Shepherd", and redundant 9 times out of 10 even in lower case. If there is any case in which disambiguation is needed somehow, use " (dog)". This would then match the practice used for all other domestic animals (e.g. Siamese (cat), and so on). "Dog", "Cat", "Horse", etc., are not added except in the unusual case that it's almost universally used that way for the particular breed in spoken and written English. E.g., no one says "I have a Norwegian Forest and an American Quarter. But no one says "I have a Beagle Dog and a German Shepherd Dog". The opposite is generally true of dog types and landraces, e.g. mountain dog, sled dog, etc., which should not be renamed. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 09:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename, as nominator. I'd bet US$10,000 that less than 1% of people who arrive at German Shepherd Dog by editing the URL bar or entering text in a search field got there by using the phrase "German Shepherd Dog", capitalized or not, but via "German Shepherd", "German shepherd" and other redirects that aren't counterintuitive, geeky nonsense. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 09:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. Amazon's top selling book on this subject is How To Train German Shepherds. (The image of a dog on the cover suggests that the book is not about training shepherds from Germany.) There is also German Shepherds For Dummies, The everything German shepherd book, and German Shepherd: Super Smart. A very small number of people in South Africa are typing in "German shepherd dog". But as far as the U.S., Canada, or Britain go, pretty much everyone is typing in just "German shepherd", according to Insights. Kauffner (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I doubt that there are many readers who get to this page that are looking for "Anatolian sheepherders" or "Bavaraian sheepherders." It is only a question of making this easier for users. I also doubt that this is either 'controversial' or 'POV' pushing, as I can't imagine that anybody really cares (there may be some club somewhere that does, but somebody who asserts it should prove it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You might consider renaming White Shepherd Dog or White German Shepherd Dog. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Added to nom. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contribs. 07:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

German Shepherd is more common but GSD is the proper name. I have no problem with the move, but the lead should start with the proper name as it is now(compare United Kingdom). But "blatant viewpoint-pushing"? It's like the pot calling the non-existent kettle black. Just because you have an essay doesn't mean everything is a nail. --Dodo bird (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply: This bit's in response to the criticism of the nominator rather than the nomination: I don't see how "an over-reliance on a familiar tool" would apply to something barely two weeks old. The fact that specialists in, and non-specialists particularly fond of, a particular topic have a strong tendency on Wikipedia to advance article naming ideas and stylistic conventions from specialist works that don't match common usage would, however, appear to be a single nail that keeps popping up. I'll retract the "viewpoint-pushing" bit though; I don't want it to distract from the main rationale.
Anyway, "the proper name" argument here is weak. One could take the hair-splitting, nit-picking position that the "proper" names of various breeds of cat are Siamese Cat, Manx Cat, Himalayan Cat, etc., and some breed registries do in fact use these overwrought names, as if they can't remember what kind of registry they are, or think their members will forget what kind of animal pedigree they are submitting. And some cat books do likewise; my shelf has The Manx Cat by D. W. Kerruish on it. But none of these articles are at such an article name, despite them being more ambiguous without "Cat" than German Shepherd is without "Dog". The only exceptions are breeds with "cat" as an integral part of a compounded formal name (Ocicat) or where use is nearly 100% consistent in including "Cat" (capitalized or not) – the only example I can think of is Norwegian Forest Cat, obviously because use of "forest" adjectivally (done because "foresty" isn't a word) is too ambiguous for nearly everyone. (In Category:Cat breeds, I see one article, the last, that needs renaming, and two that are landraces that should have " cat" and should not be in that category.) There's a similar pattern evident in horse/pony/donkey, cavy/Guinea pig, rabbit, pig, etc. article naming (often using "Breedname animaltype" instead of "Breedname (animaltype)"; the disambig style needs to be made consistent). Why should dog articles be magically different? It's pure over-disambiguation to satisfy specialist geek-out tendencies. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contribs. 07:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The American Kennel Club uses "German Shepherd Dog", so I guess that name is not as silly as I thought at first. On the other hand, Britannica, DogChannel.com and Modern Dog Magazine title their main entries on this breed simply as "German shepherd." The Wiki solution is simple enough: The most common version of the name goes in the title, the longer form boldface in the opening. Kauffner (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Support as the common name. Note the disparity of the results of a search like this vs. this and this vs. this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Missing from all this ignorant discussion is the fact that the name comes from the German: Deutsche Schaferhund. "Hund" is part of the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.84.7 (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Except that in order to state this you both miss the pertinent standard (WP:UCN) which was considered to choose the article title under which your point is entirely irrelevant, and at the same time are engaging in a form of the etymological fallacy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You only have a look at a list of required products:
• meat;
• bones (except fish and tubular bones);
• seafood;
• eggs: boiled eggs, crushed egg crack;
• curd;
• porridge: buckwheat porridge and made of finely ground barley porridge;
• grated or chopped vegetables (carrot, zucchini, pumpkin, cabbage);
• fruit.

In the first two months it’s necessary to feed the puppy six times a day, and then every month cut up to two times after it is six months old. Don’t forget about the free access to clean water.
^[1] Vavan4uk (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

|}

Not done: Thank you, but that text is the property of the site you linked, and we cannot just reproduce it here without permission. Also, that site does not appear to meet Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source, and the text would need to be rewritten in encyclopedic style, rather than sounding like a how-to. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 23:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on German Shepherd. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150824194413/http://www.akc.org/reg/dogreg_stats.cfm to http://www.akc.org/reg/dogreg_stats.cfm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150714212921/http://www.betafilm.com/rex to http://www.betafilm.com/rex/

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

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Forgive my computer ineptness... I am of the old school, long-hand and struggling typist. I have some corrective comments to make in the Wikipedia section on the breed.   It doesn't look like this format will accept photos... how can I input both comments and pictures?  I have been "a GSD guy" since the mid-1940s, a long-time SV Zuchtrichter, prolific breeder, etc.  Your help and advice would be appreciated.  Here `tis:

I will try to send my comments to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:German_Shepherd as well, but I will also attempt to paste it below your note or attach it to this memo. (Apparently, the e-mail format doesn't include the photos, so please tell me how I can send those and to whom.)

Re: [ Ticket#2015090710006884 ] Suggestion to propose specific changes to the German Shepherd Dog listing. on the article's talk page at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:German_Shepherd>. Sent via juno 8 Sept 2015. Suggestions from Fred Lanting, a.k.a. “Mr.GSD” and author of books on the breed as well as many other subjects: 1. Please replace the photo that now pictures a dog with an extremely steep pelvis and a low withers. I am attaching a couple of better photos, showing correct toplines. These are my own dogs, so there’s no copyright problem.

  German Shepherd Dog (original and German name: Deutscher Schäferhund)

2. Corrections to current Wikipedia list: “Traits” -- Under “Coat”, add: “Long coats allowed as of 2010.” Acceptable colors for the show ring (SV Standard): Sable (grau), Black-&-Tan (two types: saddle, and “bi-color” marked like a Rottweiler), Solid black. No brindles. White markings penalized. Litter size: Historic average slightly over 7; rarely over 12 pups. In the paragraph on its name, please add: “Worldwide, it is the most popular (numerous) breed.”

Under DESCRIPTION, please note: Change the wording under the picture to: Many or most GSDs have black masks. In a later paragraph about “a variety of colors”, add “All, except the white dog population and severely faded dogs, have variable amounts of black in their coats.” At the end of that paragraph, change the wording after “serious faults” and substitute this: “White GSDs are accepted in UKC shows and they also have their own clubs and shows.”

    In the next paragraph (coat length), delete “making the long-hair variety rarer”. It is less common, but NOT because of it being recessive… B&T is recessive to sable, but far more common! CORRECTION should be made in the following sentences: “Treatment of the long-hair variation differs across standards; they are accepted but [do not compete] with standard coated dogs under the German [SV system]. and UK Kennel Clubs [drop that and substitute]:   The Kennel Club (“The KC”) of Great Britain allows longcoats to compete equally in the conformation (“show”) ring. While they can compete with standard coated dogs, [it is] considered a fault in the American Kennel Club, but not in the United Kennel Club (UKC), which is the second-largest registry in the Americas. (If you wish, I could furnish a photo of a top-winning longcoat GSD.)

Intelligence

   [I suggest you add a sentence]:  However, intelligence can be defined as the ability of an individual to survive in its environment, so a Beagle may be more “intelligent” than a GSD when it comes to hunting rabbits. Man mistakes rapport and willingness to obey for intelligence.

Temperament

   I strongly suggest you drop the sentence: “They are not inclined to become immediate friends with strangers.[17]” GSDs may not be Golden Retrievers, but a normal upbringing will result in a people-friendly dog in almost all cases. Exceptions should be culled from any breeding possibility.

Change: Aggression and biting “Well-trained and socialized German Shepherds have a reputation of being very safe. However, in the United States, one 1996 source suggested that German Shepherds are responsible for more reported bitings than any other breed and have a tendency to attack smaller breeds of dogs.[19]” The reasons for more bite reports: People are not likely to report a bite from a Toy Poodle or Chihuahua; the GSD is much more numerous than most other breeds, so of course, the number of incidents will be greater.

    For the same reasons, I urge you to drop the following sentence: “An Australian report from 1999 provides statistics showing that German Shepherds are the breed third most likely to attack a person in some Australian locales.[20]”

Under the heading, “Use as working dog”: In the section dealing with guide dogs, you should add: The majority of dogs at The Seeing Eye, Inc. (oldest and largest blind-guide school in the USA) are German Shepherd Dogs. And just before “History”, there is a spelling error: “One Mexican German Sheppard, Zuyaqui, was…”

In the breed history section you mention the Altdeutsche Schäferhunde. If you are interested, you may use the photo I have inserted below, of one of the few remaining such dogs, owned by an old shepherd I visited on one of my many annual trips to Europe. This one in Exloo, Netherlands is 13 years old in the picture and only then retiring (a white GSD was being trained to take his place… also pictured, at work): (2 photos)

Under the heading, “Popularity”, you need to correct “When the UK Kennel first accepted registrations” to: “The Kennel Club in the UK…” The name of that registry has all 3 words, “The Kennel Club”.

For additional reading and to reference my comments, you may notate the following books: ^[2] The Total German Shepherd Dog -- by Fred Lanting; ISBN #0-86667-056-4 ^[3] Canine Hip Dysplasia and Other Orthopedic Disorders -- by Fred Lanting; ISBN #0-9764685-0-6

For many of my numerous published articles (magazines and websites) on the breed, see: http://siriusdog.com/article/author/Fred+Lanting

Fred Lanting, Consultant, judge

Original Message ----------From: Wikipedia information team <info-en@wikimedia.org>

To: mr.gsd@juno.com Subject: Re: [Ticket#2015090710006884] Suggestion: update the German Shepherd Dog listing Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:54:35 +0000 Dear Fred Lanting, my suggestion would be to propose specific changes on the article's talk page at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:German_Shepherd>. Please note that Wikipedia articles are not written based on experts' opinions, but based on reliable published sources. Your book thus will be more helpful as a reference than your personal expertise. Yours sincerely, Ingo Schroder -- Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/ --- 09/07/2015 09:19 - Fred Lanting Mr.GSD wrote: Ladies and gentlemen: I had not previously looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Shepherd , but in perusing it, I saw several minor errors, and one glaring omission, the latter being that you have not referenced the leading book on the breed, "The Total German Shepherd Dog", published by Hoflin Publ. Ltd., (previously by Alpine Publ.). As I have judged and lectured in more than 30 countries, I have the credentials (see attached) that should be included in your wiki article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Shepherd. I have been known as "Mister German Shepherd Dog (Mr.GSD) worldwide since the early 1970s. I would be willing to review and detail (modify) the current wiki piece. To whom may I send suggested changes? Fred 50.21.144.17 (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Mr.GSD@Juno.com ^[4]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on German Shepherd. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.akc.org/enewsletter/akc_breeder/2009/fall/handbook.cfm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://oldfci.mediasense.fr/nomenclatures_detail.asp?lang=en&file=group1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120511200854/http://www.akc.org/reg/dogreg_stats.cfm to http://www.akc.org/reg/dogreg_stats.cfm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rexchienfc.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on German Shepherd. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Is in not true the German Shepherd and Alsation are not indeed the same thing? I believe German Shepherds to generally be of a more pure breed from German Lineage amd Alsations to be bred from a more English lineage to look the same as a German Shepherd. I have generally, for one this found Alsations to have a more pointy snout and to be more, generally speaking fair in colour.

If someone could either comfirm this, or set me straight, I would greatly appreciate it. RyanvR

I don't have the sources on me, but they are indeed the same dog. The British changed the name from GSD to Alsatian after WWII because of anti German feelings. Many other countries did aswell, however, many have since changed the name back to GSD.

In response to appearance, some breeds do vary slightly from country yo country. I believe the English line of Labrador Retrievers are a bit taller and not as stocky as their American counter parts. 173.61.237.150 (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect; the name was changed in Britain after WWI, as the article describes. But they are the same dog; I had what my folks called an Alsatian when I was small, and it wasn't until I was adult that I realized that "Alsatian" is what many Jews in the US were calling German Shepherds in the '50s. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

has nothing to do with what "Jews in the US were calling German Shepherds in the '50s" - it was what they were called in the UK during WWII. The name was officially changed back to German Shepherd Dog (from "Alsatian Wolf Dog") in 1977; according to the breed's book published in the Terra Nova breed series. The breed book published by The Kennel Club Books states the same thing and further states that it was known as "Shepherd Dogs" or "Police Dogs" in the US during the same WWII period. try to get your facts sourced right - and please don't respond saying your parents were American Jews in the 1950s. i'll happily conceded the point if you provide a source other than that. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.243.83 (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll say whatever I damn please, anecdotal or otherwise, on talk pages; if I were attempting to put it in the article, you'd have a point to make here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese still call the breed Wolf-Dog. 86.176.48.3 (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Alsatian" is still the popular name for this breed in Britain, despite anything the The Kennel Club may say. The usage is certainly not historical, as the article suggests. --Ef80 (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC) I am British and have owned two GSD'S I would disagree that 'Alsatian' is the popular name. The name German shepherd is more commonly used in everyday speech Alsatian is an alternative and declining name that is less popular than GSD in British English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on German Shepherd. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.vonziugermanshepherds.com/gsd-info.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829164852/http://whitepawsgsr.com/breed.html to http://www.whitepawsgsr.com/breed.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720164714/http://www.nzkc.org.nz/br528.html to http://www.nzkc.org.nz/br528.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330041020/http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Breeds/GermanShepherdDog to http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Breeds/GermanShepherdDog

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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The references include Coren, Strickland, von Stephanitz, Kern, Francis G. (1990), and Choron, without saying which of their books or other publications were the source. I guessed for Coren and Strickland, but someone with access to their books needs to figure out which books are meant and give full publication details. I wanted to put in Human-animal communication#Working Dogs a sentence about how the dogs communicate to their trainers, especially to report back after they are sent to scout, and Coren and Strickland probably address this, but that would need correct references. Kim9988 (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Kim9988, I have done a quick [temporary?] fix for the books mentioned here and started a Bibliography section; there is still a lot more work to be done to sort out the refs/Further reading, etc. but I'll leave that to someone else. The 'Human-animal communication' should only be included if it is specific to German Shepherds. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work. I didn't want to put communication here. I wanted to put German Shepherds there, if dogs as scouts do communicate back to their handlers what they found. That article already mentions animal training and whistles to command working dogs, so what's missing is coverage of communication back from the dogs, if they do it. Kim9988 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

Hello! I am new to Wiki and taking part in an educational assignment as part of my class at the University of Guelph. I have added the section "Musculoskeletal Health & Supplementation" to provide more information on dietary supplementation for skeletal ailments of German Shepherds. Let me know what you think so I can make any changes needed! Thank you! Scrawf95 (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I made an article for musculoskeletal health and supplementation for German Shepherds as part of an educational assignment for my course at the University of Guelph. I am hoping to gather some feedback for it to improve it. Let me know what you think! Thanks. Scrawf95 (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I think some improvements to this page would be explaining the different types of coloration and having pictures of other types including; bicolor and white German Shepherds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niccotrone (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If you work with Shepherd at first time, it would be better to hire an experienced instructor. You can begin training with a two-month old puppy, put it through feeding, so that your pet will have an incentive to get sweets for following an order.

If you decided to train your "German" all by yourself, we suggest you to have a look at basic mistakes are made in the process of training.

Educating a future champion such commands as "Sit!", "Stop!" and "Down" don't make such mistakes:
• the order is followed after the direct effects;
• strong jerk of the leash and arm-twisting;
• the order is followed staticky and under the same circumstances;
• lack of command and gestures;
• long-term studies.

Signed and dated for archive purposes only. William Harristalk 01:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Is that back-coated or black-coated?

Signed and dated for archive purposes only. William Harristalk 01:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering why this article has been added to the category "wolf-dog hybrids"? The nickname "Alsatian Wolfdog" (or for instance in Finnish, "susikoira" - literally "wolf dog") has came from the GSD's appearance, especially in the time when they were often more or less greyish sable/ greyish agouti in colour, not because of "crossbreeding with a wolf". --Canarian (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

the wolfdog article also states that the German Shepherd has some degree of wolf admixture at its origin. I've read in a book once that this is a myth, even though it doesn't go at any greater length at refuting it than stating so and joking/stating it would be a bit nonsensical to mixture wolf genes/blood in a breed intended as a shepherd of sheep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.234.134.21 (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems a bit odd that Hitler's dog is first in the history section, it has nothing to do with the history of the breed. At best that paragraph should be moved to notable individuals section. 81.164.190.175 (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The wording of the aggression and biting section seems to be slightly unclear. I believe that what they are claiming is that once the high number of German Shepherds as pets was taken into account, the large number of the reports on biting and aggression made sense due to the big population. The percentage and ranking was then comparatively decreased significantly. This seems to be what is intended, but the wording made me question whether or not this was clear. Cranein (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. Cavalryman (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I propose merging King Shepherd into this article. Currently the King Shepherd article contains only two varifiable sources, one is an obscure dog registry and the other is a mention in a magazine article which does not describe it as an independent breed, just a sounder version of the German Shepherd, further they are yet to be recognised by any of the major kennel clubs. Cavalryman (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Support - fails GNG, which is why the article has so few references. William Harristalk 08:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Support, for the same reasons the one above this should be re-opened. "Found some sources" isn't good enough. They have to be in-depth, and independent, and secondary, and reliable. Neither Shiloh nor King Shepherd breeding experiments qualify. I'm skeptical that we should be covering them at all, per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#PROMO. This is WP:NFT stuff. By contrast, see labradoodle, which has boatloads of secondary sourcing available (I'm not sure how much of it we're actually using yet) despite also being a crossbreed without any recognition as a breed in its own right yet. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Support as it does not appear that it is a recognized breed, but rather a sub-breed of the German shepherd. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. Cavalryman (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I propose also merging Berger Blanc Suisse (White Swiss Shepherd Dog) into this article. Despite being recognised by a number of kennel clubs, as with the White Shepherd above there are a remarkable lack of attributable secondary sources available for these dogs. The merger will maintain the page history and as sources become available the article can be recreated. Cavalryman (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC).

Oppose, for now at least – it's an internationally-recognised breed (, ) albeit a recent one with obvious close links to the German Shepherd. This article is already quite large, so it probably makes more sense to keep a separate breed separate from it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, for many of the same reasons as "White Shepherd". It is a recognized breed and there is sourcing. I don't see any reason to merge these articles, which are for distinct dog breeds. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The issue is not one of recognition by clubs either large nor small. Nor is it one of size, with GSD being 60kb in size and BBS being 5kb. The issue is does it meet Wikipedia's General notability guideline WP:GNG? William Harristalk 21:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

That's fair, but I certainly think being a recognized breed makes the breed notable in and of itself. I know this is an apples to grapes comparison, but I often come to articles like Saphenista cnemiodota. They are often devoid of any but one source (this one, which I found by clicking 'random article' several times, has two, but alas) and only have the most basic description. There are hundreds/thousands of these articles. However, they continue to exist. The point is: it is a biological subject (species vs breed, I know) that we have enough sources to show that it exists. The same thing is true for very small human settlements and very minor sportspeople, which often have one or no reliable sources, but continue to exist. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I don't think this is too far off from those examples. It is a separate breed that is recognized by a major organization which specializes in recognizing breeds. Therefore, the subject is proven to exist and it is shown to be something that is generally notable, i.e. a dog breed. Whether there is a ton of sourcing is not super relevant here, imo, because the issue is not verifiability, but rather notability, and again, I think that has been addressed by the major org recognition. There are -excessive- sources available online for many topics, but dog breeds is just (at least in the case of minor breeds) not one of them. Again, I'm overthinking this, but having typed this out, I will post it. Cheers! ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

We need a broader -- not just on this page -- discussion of what the threshold is for breeds as opposed to species. I agree with El cid here; recognition by a major breed organization should suffice even if there are sparse sources. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

William Harris, are you really suggesting that a breed recognised by the world dog breed association might not be notable for inclusion in Wikipedia? If so, which breeds do you think might be eligible, and why? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.
— WP:NOPAGE

William Harristalk 23:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This follows on from this post. I recently removed from this article some ill-written content sourced mainly to perfectdogbreeds.com; part of my edit summary was "in what world is perfectdogbreeds.com an independent reliable source?" That edit was reverted (with some corrections to the text). So the question is: do we want an encyclopaedia sourced to perfectdogbreeds.com and other junk sources of that kind, or do we want to follow policy and stick to those that meet our definition of a reliable source? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

perfectdogbreeds.com and other similar site are 100% not WP:RS, perfectdogbreeds.com's own terms of service states "Perfectdogbreeds does not promise that the site or any content, service or feature of the site will be error-free ... Perfectdogbreeds disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including any warranties of accuracy". Cavalryman (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC).

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. Cavalryman (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I propose merging Shiloh Shepherd dog into this article. Currently the Shiloh Shepherd article contains a number of primary sources including multiple citations from the Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA) and the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC), but there is nothing truly reliable about this as a breed, further they are yet to be recognised by any of the major kennel clubs. Cavalryman (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Closure template removed & merger proposal reinitiated. Cavalryman (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC).

Merge. I would re-open this. This is not actually a breed, it's a German Shepherd Dog cross-breeding experiment, that barely rises above WP:NFT level, and which is not recognized as a breed in its own right by anyone but its promoters. If we cover this encyclopedically at all it should be as a section at this main article. This is essentially the exact same case as Manx Cat#Tasman Manx: An experimental breed-establishment attempt with no recognition, various bits of primary sourcing from breeders, and tertiary and very weak secondary sourcing that simply parrots what the breeders are saying and contains no WP:AEIS of its own. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Merge as per Mac. WP:NFT - the linkage from here to there is brilliant. We can regard the breed clubs as being WP:PRIMARY sources that are not independent. William Harristalk 20:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Support - as it does not appear that it is a recognized breed, but rather a sub-breed of the German shepherd. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oppose,EXTREAMLY OPPOSED THESE BREEDS ARE GENETICALLY DIFFERENT AND HAVE DIFFERENT REGISTIERY! Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristina0z (talk · contribs) 00:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC).

And the evidence supporting these statements is? William Harristalk 00:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. Cavalryman (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I propose to merge East-European Shepherd into this article. Currently the East-European Shepherd article contains no sources, the only source I could find was two mentions in David Hancock’s Dogs of the shepherds, both describing it as a variant of the German Shepherd. Both quotes:

“The recently developed Eastern European Shepherd, an attractive, more traditional GSD-variant, soon became Russia’s most popular breed.”^[5]
“The best GSD I have seen in recent years was a variation developed as the East European Shepherd, Russia’s most popular breed. The brace I saw at the World Dog Show in Budapest was truely impressive.”^[6]

Cavalryman (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC).

Maybe, maybe not. ru:Восточноевропейская овчарка indicates the breed is also recognized by United Kennel Clubs International and International Kennel Union (unworthy of an article? perhaps?); what are our criteria for breeds having their own articles? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

To be an independent article it still needs to meet the criteria of GNG, significant coverage in independent RS. The two kennel clubs mentioned above themselves appear to fail GNG, the United Kennel Clubs International article looks a good candidate for AfD with only that Wikipedia article, their own website and a Facebook page on Google, I do not think either make the subject notable. I believe the Hancock source suffices for a section or sub-section in the GSD article as a variety of the GSD that retains traditional conformation and is the most popular breed (or variety) of dog in Russia (that last may need confirming somehow). It suspect it is likely that the article is a case of TOOSOON and in time when sources will appear, when that happens it can be un-merged. Cavalryman (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC).

Support. Fails GNG, which is why the article has no references. Only one article found using Google Scholar - a Russian research paper. Nothing in Google Books apart from the usual stationary for every dog type in the world. Key citations in the Russian article go to error pages on the websites listed. William Harristalk 08:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Support. Like the one immediately below, this may be independently notable some day, but at this stage it only seems to be WP:Verifiable, and to pass WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. So, worth covering in a section (or rather a subsection on a section on variants/crossbreeds). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, this is a distinct breed, nationally recognised as such at least since 1955, first in the USSR, then in the Russian Federation. The 1955 breed standard is here (in Russian, of course); the current standard is here, and there's some history here. It seems that it was recognised by the Russian Cynological Federation in 2002. It's been purposely bred for 100 years to be different from the German Shepherd – specifically, to be much larger, and more resistant to cold. There are enough hits on GBooks and Scholar for "восточно-европейская овчарка" (the actual name of the breed) to allay any possible notability concerns. The article needs to be completely overhauled, but not merged. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Just adding that I am of course aware that the association website I've cited above is not an independent source; it does however cite independent sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate it is a thing and hence I am not advocating deletion, but at the moment I have access to only one reliable secondary source on these dogs (cited above) so am hoping to retain the little information we do have about them in the parent breed page. I have created a shell of what I am thinking about in terms of merged content in one of my sandboxes and welcome other's contributions. Cavalryman (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

References

[1]
http://www.animalssale.com/dog-breeds/german-shepherd-dog/
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
Hancock, David (2014). Dogs of the shepherds: a review of the pastoral breeds. Ramsbury, Wiltshire: The Crowood Press Ltd. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-84797-808-0.
[6]
ibid, p. 28.

Well, this seems to bring us straight back to the need for a project guideline on breed notability. In my opinion, recognition by national government is the strongest indication of automatic notability (followed by, in roughly descending order, recognition by: an NGO or kennel club authorised by the national government; the FCI; the government of an autonomous sub-national region; the principal (but not FCI-affiliated) kennel club of a country; and nothing else).

I don't believe we should be considering merging an article merely because (speaking only for myself here, of course) we don't have sufficient linguistic ability to read the available sources – that seems rather to go against countering systemic bias. Perhaps mention this discussion at WT:RUSSIA? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, I agree we need to put some more emphasis back into that effort. I have been unable to open the above links, I will have another go tonight. I think if they are USSR/Russian governmental links, not those of a kennel club, we have sufficient sources for a stub. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC).

I managed to review both sources, I too am having great difficulty decyphering the Russian and cannot attribute the original standard, whilst the second is just a breed club's webpage. A search on the Russian Cynological Federation's webpage got a couple of hits mentioning dates of dog shows but I could not find a breed page or standard there. Still the only independent RS I can find is the above. Cavalryman (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, You can't keep adding all the breeds that used GDS's as a foundation breed to the GSD page! THIS PAGE IS ABOUT GERMAN SHEPHERDS NOT ALL THESE OTHER MIXES AND VARIATIONS! Not only are many these breeds genetically different, they are registered under othere registries and DO NOT BREED with GSD's! STOP DELETING MOUNTAINS OF INFORMATION FROM PAGES AND THEN PULLING THIS BULL SHIT! Your a maniputalive lier! Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristina0z (talk · contribs) 00:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC).
Oppose This wholesale and secret destruction of information and perfectly good articles is destructive to the project. WP:Before WP:Preserve WP:Not paper. Why do this? You are doing the readers a substantial disservice. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing secret or destructive occurring, patently unreliable sources quite rightly fall short of this project's standards and both they and the information attributed to them need to be removed. Cavalryman (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC).

Oppose The East-European Shepherd is also officially recognized by the Nordic Kennel Union, and due that, in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland - not just in Eastern European kennel clubs. --Canarian (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Canarian, I added that information to the article a couple of days ago. What is really needed here is some evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources (which I understand to mean not just breed clubs). There seem to be a good number of those, but all that I can see are in Russian; I believe they are likely to be sufficient, but can't really read them (or only with great difficulty). Any proficient Russian speakers here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. Cavalryman (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC).

I propose merging White Shepherd into this article. Despite being recognised by the United Kennel Club there is a remarkable lack of attributable sources available for these dogs, currently the White Shepherd article contains almost no RS about the breed, nearly all of the sources that would pass as reliable are referencing examples of white coloured German Shepherds, only the Stockdog Savvy book makes (a truely fleeting) mention of it as a breed based on the GSD. As above it appears to be WP:TOOSOON and in time when more sources become available it can be un-merged. Cavalryman (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC).

Support. This seems reasonably likely to become notable some day, but a breed standard is just a primary source, while brief mention in a book on stockdogs would seem to be tertiary sourcing, and no in-depth even if it were secondary. WP:THEREISNODEADLINE, so we can preserve basic material at German Shepherd as a section, unless/until secondary sources start writing about this nascent breed in earnest. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - per article, it was recognized by the UKC. There are plenty of sources and the article is far too long to actually merge into this article. If it was merged, there would be a significant loss of information. I see no reason a recognized breed with a substantial article should be merged. If there are issues with sourcing, that should be addressed - merging is not the answer. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Note - primary sources are allowed on WP. Further, there are plenty (likely thousands) of species pages which have a single source which is no more than a record that the species exists. Yes, a breed is different from a species, but this is a breed that is recognized by a major breeding house. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Avail yourself to WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Primary sources are allowed, un-WP:RELIABLE primary sources are not. Additionally, the article as rated at "Start" class - and has been since 2007, this article is going nowhere - and is only 9kb in size, which does not constitute a substantial article in my opinion. William Harristalk 02:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - you can NOT keep adding OTHER BREEDS to the GSD page! Shiloh'S and King shepherds and swiss shepherds are all registered breeds! ARBA, ISSA, ISSR, AND ISSDC ARE REGISITIRES! this page is about German shepherd NOT its off shoot breeds! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristina0z (talk • contribs) 00:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Support White-colored German Shepherd Dogs are still GSDs. It's a color variant that has been present in the breed since the earliest times, can be produced by non-white dogs carrying the gene (and conversely, white GSDs can have non-white progeny), and does not prevent the dogs with the variant from being registered as GSDs. PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose This wholesale and secret destruction of information and perfectly good articles is destructive to the project. WP:Before WP:Preserve WP:Not paper. Why do this? You are doing the readers a substantial disservice.

Certainly, breed recognition by larger kennel clubs is a factor, but it is but one. Kennel clubs (e.g., United Kennel Club, American Kennel Club, UCI, Federacion Cynologique, make a big deal about recognizing breeds. I was a member of the Leonberger Club of America when the AKC stole the breed over the objection of the involved and responsible breeders (and undermined the LCA). IMO, they are more interested in the registration fees than the welfare of the animals and breed.

Nevertheless, these breeds exist, and if they have sources and meet WP:GNG, they clearly should be kept. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Lard Almighty, regarding you revert of my edits:

- the FCI weight of the female German Shepherd was correct - you will need to explain your revert.
- you will not need to find a "BBC" reference for the one million killed at Auchwitz - it is off topic to the subject of the German Shepherd dog. William Harristalk 09:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the weight. I think it should be discussed on the TP whether it is off-topic. I don't see a problem with it as that section relates to the use of GS by the Nazis, and this is one example of how the dogs were used at one extermination camp to aid in the killing of millions of people. But if others disagree I have no problem with removal. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Lard Almighty, what on earth is "Piper (1988)"? And why do you regard a no-author-given and no reference used website as a WP:REPUTABLE source? William Harristalk 09:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a scholarly book by Franciszek Piper. I've expanded the ref. I am guessing that the book had been referred to previously in the article but that at some point the original cite was removed, leaving the cite here orphaned. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou, that would be a reasonable assumption. And of the second source that you have included? I would not accept that as a reputable source in any canid-related article. William Harristalk 09:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The BBC? I wouldn't necessarily see it as reliable in any discussion of breed characteristics (although the BBC has been mentioned as a source in the controversy section) but as a reference for the numbers killed at Auschwitz it is perfectly reliable. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not mention reliable, that would be another conversation. The article has no author nor cites any references, it does not meet WP:REPUTABLE - it is simply text put together by persons unknown and placed under the banner of a media organisation. If the site is searched we would find an indemnity or warranty stating that you cannot rely on anything there as fact, as with all media websites. It does not even meet the requirements of a WP:PRIMARY source. William Harristalk 10:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no question that the BBC is a reputable source (unlike say the Daily Mail). If you have evidence that the BBC is not reputable, you should bring that up in the appropriate forum. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You are missing the point completely. For THAT PARTICULAR ARTICLE that you have decided to use as a reference, it does not meet Wikipedia policy - nothing to do with the BBC itself (which is another conversation). William Harristalk 10:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I already addressed that point, which is why I was confused. I said I wouldn't necessarily see it as reliable in any discussion of breed characteristics (although the BBC has been mentioned as a source in the controversy section) but as a reference for the numbers killed at Auschwitz it is perfectly reliable.. I think that's pretty clear. In many articles there are things that are mentioned that go beyond the main scope of the article (in this case the characteristics of a dog breed) and which can be sourced to sources that might not be considered reliable/reputable to back up points relating the main scope of the article but which are reliable/reputable when it comes to backing up other statements (in this case, how many people were killed at Auschwitz, and activity in which GS dogs were involved). Lard Almighty (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

And in the cited article the information is said by whom? And they base their information on what? Because clearly they were not there at the time. In summary, the article that you have decided to cite in German Shepherd has NO author and it makes use of NO references (i.e. does not meet WP:REPUTABLE), where it all comes from is unclear, yet you believe it is fine to use. I can see I am getting nowhere here. William Harristalk 11:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

We're getting nowhere because you are misunderstanding Wikipedia policy. A news cite doesn't need an author etc. There are literally millions of media articles that are published without bylines. As long as the source itself is considered reliable/reputable, then it meets the policy requirements. The BBC has a solid reputation for fact-checking, so we can assume that it would not publish a claim that 1 million people died in Auschwitz without having checked that fact. In this case, we can be doubly certain because the number is backed up by another reliable source (and indeed many, many sources state 1 million plus as the number).

I suggest that you stop this line of argument, and that if your belief is that we should not include the 1 million number at all (no matter how reliably sourced) you start a RfC here and see if you can build consensus rather than just removing longstanding, sourced material. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Once again, you obfuscated my position, and once again you recommend that I should just go away to somewhere else. William Harristalk 08:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I suggested that you post a Request for Comment here (not somewhere else) to see if there is support for removing the mention of the number of dead at Auschwitz. It's the best way forward. I really don't see how you can argue that the number is not adequately sourced, being sourced as it is to an academic book and a reliable news site. Attempting to argue the contrary is futile. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the number killed is extraordinarily out of place - being that there has been no other input to this discussion, I am siding with removal, and will be removing, pending further discussion. We discuss Hitler in this article, but do not describe him in any detail - that is the purpose of wikilinks - we do not discuss every topic we mention in detail, only that topic's association with the subject of the article. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The outline of the dog is difficult to make out and makes the dog's head look skinny and unnatural. I don't know if it's the lighting or what, but I would recommend picking a different photo. Heck, the profile picture of the current photo's uploader would be a better fit than this, or just about any other photo of hers.

For reference, I'm referring to this photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Angel_(8352423165).jpg 68.49.40.87 (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Beg to differ, that's a wonderful photo. Ugly? Eye of the beholder. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Still, if the article was German Shepherd Dog Head, it would be a suitable picture. I don't think the other one is ugly, but the full body one does represent the GSD better (though a smooth stock coat might be even better.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the current picture does not give an adequate appreciation of the breed, a side on full body picture would be much more appropriate. Cavalryman (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Reverted. There are a dozen side-images on the page, and the frontal headshot shows both the look and the emotion of the dog. With different opinions here, an RfC may be appropriate for this question. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, there are three contributors above saying the current image is not appropriate for the infobox, your views alone support the current image. Please outline why an image that does not provide an adequate appreciation of the breed is appropriate the template whose purpose is to summarise the breed. Cavalryman (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I concur with JPG that the pix needs to show the entire dog and not just its head, else there is little difference when compared with the Saarloos wolfdog, Czechoslovakian Wolfdog, and other GSD-like or derived breeds. William Harristalk 23:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I seem to be outbarked here. Thought that the present image presents some emotion from the dog as well as portraying the breed. If a side view has to be used, how about something like this image, which would keep some feeling to the image and retain an aesthetic sense in the opening picture while showing the standard full body side view. At least another candidate for the image. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I had considered that one but personally think the other I added shows a better proportioned healthier animal. Some of the candidates I found were:

My preferred

Randy Kryn’s preferred

Version before current headshot

IMO a terrible example of reckless breeding

WikiData image, again IMO back too sloped

I think we should avoid an example with a back too sloped, it has been a reckless distortion of the showring breeders that has resulted in an unhealthy breed. Cavalryman (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC).

Yes, the poor breeding results in the swayed back as well as spreading the persistent hip problems in older shepherds. Your image is interesting, but I don't remember seeing that color pattern before (not saying I'm an expert). Personally like the water background for the aesthetics. The pre-headshot image is a good one and could be returned without a problem (and thanks for the infobox clean up), but I went searching commons for a "better" image and came upon the happy female, which I thought was a good representation of an often maligned breed. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Not only do they seem to have health problems, they are not good for work. I remember reading that German police had trouble sourcing healthy dogs without that slopey back which makes running or so more difficult. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:1D12:8AA:9B72:A978 (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I was never a huge fan of that image, my order of preferences is left to right of my lineup (acknowledging the cropped versions the actual version). The colour on the left is found in the working lines, these lines are becoming more popular as the health of the breed deteriorates through poor breeding practices (in Australia and the UK anyway, I cannot speak for the US). Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC).

Regarding the current pix, that should not be lost. It would be ideal under a section on behaviour, but unfortunately we do not have one at present. Is anyone interested in locating a few paragraphs for a new section to accompany this pix? William Harristalk 09:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, and it is a nice image. I'll help polish a new section if someone tosses in a few sourced facts. The present image and the edge of water Shepherd picture appeals since a 'looking into the camera' type of animal image reminds that all animals (including insects) share "aliveness" with humans. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Consciousness - we are looking into the eyes of another sentient being. William Harristalk 03:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The second or third are good; the first has the same problem as the 4th/5th pair. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that current photo shows a dog with a pretty messed up proportions and it is probably not a real GSD, look on the weird shape of ears, big head, short legs and the shape of snout. The previous photo was a typical working dog, perfect according to von Stephanitz standards, with correct posture, and no, this dog is not "too skinny", it is a dame that weights 33 kg, and is a big dog, people simply fall to the image of current show strain of GSDs. I took this photo because after running through the Commons I saw no good, color photo of a working GSD (I think the real one), in a show posture. I think it should be restored, or at least, if most of you like the show GSD so much, put a correctly shaped dog according to the KC standards. Platyna (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Currently the article contains no pictures at all of the working GSD in the "classic" colour", and the article is illustrated by a dog that most likely isn't even pure breed GSD. This is lamentable.Platyna (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Platyna, if you can upload a better photograph of your dog I am sure it can be considered, perhaps it is because the dog’s legs are splayed and ears are not fully pricked in the above photograph but it gives the impression of underweight or imperfect conformation (I know from experience how hard it is to get a good picture of a dog).

Further, do you have any evidence that the current image is of a crossbreed? I agree it is a little overweight and its feet appear to be splayed but frankly the its stance is preferable to that of the dog in your photo. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC).

Hi, the bit under Skeletal health and supplementation that says, "Appropriate calcium levels are vital in developing a strong skeletal system and aid in preventing orthopaedic diseases like Canine Hip Dysplasia" is correct but still potentially misleading. Appropriate levels of dietary calcium in large and giant breed puppies is in fact reduced, but the way this sentence is phrased could lead laypeople to the mistaken assumption that they should provide their new GSD puppy with calcium supplementation on top of its AAFCO-certified large breed puppy food, potentially resulting in excess calcium which can cause developmental disorders and joint problems. Many laypeople may not suspect that there is such a thing as too much calcium to feed a growing puppy, given the way added calcium is advertised in foods for human children. I'm sure no one here would want this article to result in a single puppy being harmed by a well-intentioned but ignorant owner! Suggest editing to "Appropriately controlled calcium levels" or "appropriately limited calcium levels", which will instead suggest that there is an upper limit to healthy dietary calcium. User:Kasreyn (not logged in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:800:2B40:3D5F:FCFD:4B40:66E (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

German Shepherd Human; self assessment on raising a German Shepherd What to consider? What training would the pup need? What training would the adult pup need? Puppy milk or mothers milk? How to take care of a German shepherd. Where to look for a German Shepherd? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.223.181.15 (talk) 1:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, 194.223.181.15, that is a useful list of things that should not be included in this or any Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a manual. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cavalryman and BarrelProof: Thank you for bringing up this discussion point. I added the {{Use American English}} template without knowing that there was any contention on this issue. I can't see any strong national ties. The Germany article uses British English. The German language article has no language template but appears to use American English.

I would propose using British English here, mainly because I'm British, and there are a LOT of examples of 's/z' spellings in this article, so we do need to impose a template one way or the other.

In my experience, when you propose a discussion, it turns out that most people are not interested, or you end up failing to reach a consensus, so maybe we could have a vote and come to a decision in one week's time?

Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Since you and Cavalryman both seem inclined toward British English, that would be fine with me. I initially just looked for which variation seemed most prevalent in the article and got the impression that there were more 'z' spellings than 's' ones. Of course, Oxford is British, and Oxford spelling uses 'z' spellings (but with colour and behavioural). It sounds like you would prefer non-Oxford British (i.e., 's' spellings)? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that British English is appropriate, it appears to be the first version used then over time edits it has been changed. Cavalryman (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC).

Actually, as I said before in an edit comment, the early versions of the article used American spelling ("behavior") until some British spelling was mixed into it on 27 July 2004 (with "favour" and "de-Germanised"). Since then the spelling seems to have been mixed. At the end of 2005, it had "color", "organization", "recognize", and "behavior" in it, so it was certainly not consistently British. But anyhow, I have no objection to making it consistently British. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I reckon British English would be best here then, if you are in agreement. Oxford English would be OK but it's the 'z' spellings that jar with me – just a purely personal thing with no logical basis! I'll let one of you two make the change, unless you think we should wait a bit longer to see if anyone else wants to wade in? Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I've taken the above as a consensus and restored the Commonwealth variety of English; the script I use may have missed a few things, so some human checking might be advisable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised your script didn't catch "color". It otherwise did a good job. I changed those, but didn't change "coloration", since that seems to be the dominant spelling in BrE, although the -ouration spelling also exists. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kbaker12, Kaitlyns9, Scrawf95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment: That course apparently ended in late 2017, and none of the listed accounts have done any editing since then. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If the lupo italiano is not eligible for inclusion, then why does typing it into the search box redirect to the German Shepherd page?
Also, the sources regarding its genetics demonstrate it is not a hybrid (despite what its creator claimed). Indeed, the second source includes a phylogenetic dendrogram demonstrating that it is pretty much just a GSD variant.
Perhaps, for notability reasons, it should be mentioned that the breeding and maintenance of the animal is State-funded. Mariomassone (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Are the traits info have vulgar language or not? JaFryingPan (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you please expand on your question, perhaps with specific text that concerns you? DonIago (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Doniago, presumably JaFryingPan is not aware that 'bitch' is the correct English term for a female dog, and not in any way vulgar. When the same word is applied to people it may (in some contexts) be intended as an insult, but it's not being applied to people in this article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

That seems very possible, but I didn't want to make assumptions. DonIago (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"Alsatian" was coined initially by the British military to refer to their working German Shepherd Dogs during the First World War. They took umbrage at the name because of who they were fighting. The name stuck in the UK, but started to fall out of fashion in the 1970s. Much petitioning over the years occurred, and the UK Kennel Club finally retired the name "Alsatian" in favor of "German Shepherd Dog" in 2010. While the name "Alsatian" should remain in the article, it should be explained that it is now officially outdated, although many people still use the name "Alsatian", probably out of habit and local tradition. sugarfish (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

[1] [1]
http://www.animalssale.com/dog-breeds/german-shepherd-dog/

[2] [2]

[3] [3]

[4] [4]

[5] [5]
Hancock, David (2014). Dogs of the shepherds: a review of the pastoral breeds. Ramsbury, Wiltshire: The Crowood Press Ltd. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-84797-808-0.

[6] [6]
ibid, p. 28.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

Preliminary Review

Writing Style

Factual Accuracy

Broad Coverage

Neutrality

Stability

Images

Other Comments

Survey

Discussion

April 2014

Requested move

Preliminary Review

Writing Style

Factual Accuracy

Broad Coverage

Neutrality

Stability

Images

Other Comments

Survey

Discussion

April 2014

Requested move

POV?

In Russia...

Nothing on schutzhund?

Police dogs?

European vs American attributes

Weight

"Aggression issues"

Forced stance depicted in the photograph

Puppy Ears

Biting

"Aggression" Section needs to be cleaned up, better sourced

The main police dog in Brazil

Requested move

Camoflagued guard dog?

Kennel Club controversy?

German Shepherds are NOT active dogs

Lifespan

Somebody messing with the article?

Ear Health

Dead links

Shortcoming in documentation

Vandalism in first section

I have edited the main article photo

Line in The opening remarks

They seem wolfish

"Temperament" section

I just did some changes,

Playing

Not a Good Article

Former East- and West-German lines

Sections and images and galleries

I'm reverting to earlier version - please discuss changes

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014

Caps

Encyclopaedic enough? POV issues

In Popular Culture

Redirect?

Food

External links modified

Corrections to GSD section of Wikipedia, by "Mr.GSD"

External links modified

External links modified

German Shepherd vs Alsatian(Same Thing)

External links modified

incomplete citations

Musculoskeletal Health &amp; Supplementation

My Suggestions

Training

Edit of September 30, 2018

Wolf-dog hybrids?

Move Hitler's dog's section

Aggression and Biting wording

Merger proposal:King Shepherd

Merger proposal:Berger Blanc Suisse/White Swiss Shepherd Dog

Sources

Merger proposal:Shiloh Shepherd dog

Musculoskeletal Health & Supplementation