text:
Buckingham π theorem

In engineering, applied mathematics, and physics, the Buckingham π theorem is a key theorem in dimensional analysis. It is a formalisation of Rayleigh's method of dimensional analysis. Loosely, the theorem states that if there is a physically meaningful equation involving a certain number n of physical variables, then the original equation can be rewritten in terms of a set of p = n − k dimensionless parameters π1, π2, ..., πp constructed from the original variables, where k is the number of physical dimensions involved; it is obtained as the rank of a particular matrix.

The theorem provides a method for computing sets of dimensionless parameters from the given variables, or nondimensionalization, even if the form of the equation is still unknown.

The Buckingham π theorem indicates that validity of the laws of physics does not depend on a specific unit system. A statement of this theorem is that any physical law can be expressed as an identity involving only dimensionless combinations (ratios or products) of the variables linked by the law (for example, pressure and volume are linked by Boyle's law – they are inversely proportional). If the dimensionless combinations' values changed with the systems of units, then the equation would not be an identity, and the theorem would not hold.

History
Although named for Edgar Buckingham, the π theorem was first proved by the French mathematician Joseph Bertrand in 1878. Bertrand considered only special cases of problems from electrodynamics and heat conduction, but his article contains, in distinct terms, all the basic ideas of the modern proof of the theorem and clearly indicates the theorem's utility for modelling physical phenomena. The technique of using the theorem ("the method of dimensions") became widely known due to the works of Rayleigh. The first application of the π theorem in the general case to the dependence of pressure drop in a pipe upon governing parameters probably dates back to 1892, a heuristic proof with the use of series expansions, to 1894.

Formal generalization of the π theorem for the case of arbitrarily many quantities was given first by A. Vaschy in 1892, then in 1911—apparently independently—by both A. Federman and D. Riabouchinsky, and again in 1914 by Buckingham. It was Buckingham's article that introduced the use of the symbol "$$\pi_i$$" for the dimensionless variables (or parameters), and this is the source of the theorem's name.

Statement
More formally, the number $$p$$ of dimensionless terms that can be formed is equal to the nullity of the dimensional matrix, and $$k$$ is the rank. For experimental purposes, different systems that share the same description in terms of these dimensionless numbers are equivalent.

In mathematical terms, if we have a physically meaningful equation such as $$f(q_1,q_2,\ldots,q_n)=0,$$ where $$q_1, \ldots, q_n$$ are any $$n$$ physical variables, and there is a maximal dimensionally independent subset of size $$k$$, then the above equation can be restated as $$F(\pi_1,\pi_2,\ldots,\pi_p)=0,$$ where $$\pi_1, \ldots, \pi_p$$ are dimensionless parameters constructed from the $$q_i$$ by $$p = n - k$$ dimensionless equations — the so-called Pi groups — of the form $$\pi_i=q_1^{a_1}\,q_2^{a_2} \cdots q_n^{a_n},$$ where the exponents $$a_i$$ are rational numbers. (They can always be taken to be integers by redefining $$\pi_i$$ as being raised to a power that clears all denominators.) If there are $$\ell$$ fundamental units in play, then $$p \geq n - \ell$$.

Significance
The Buckingham π theorem provides a method for computing sets of dimensionless parameters from given variables, even if the form of the equation remains unknown. However, the choice of dimensionless parameters is not unique; Buckingham's theorem only provides a way of generating sets of dimensionless parameters and does not indicate the most "physically meaningful".

Two systems for which these parameters coincide are called similar (as with similar triangles, they differ only in scale); they are equivalent for the purposes of the equation, and the experimentalist who wants to determine the form of the equation can choose the most convenient one. Most importantly, Buckingham's theorem describes the relation between the number of variables and fundamental dimensions.

Proof
For simplicity, it will be assumed that the space of fundamental and derived physical units forms a vector space over the real numbers, with the fundamental units as basis vectors, and with multiplication of physical units as the "vector addition" operation, and raising to powers as the "scalar multiplication" operation: represent a dimensional variable as the set of exponents needed for the fundamental units (with a power of zero if the particular fundamental unit is not present). For instance, the standard gravity $$g$$ has units of $$\mathsf{L} / \mathsf{T}^2 = \mathsf{L}^1 \mathsf{T}^{-2}$$ (length over time squared), so it is represented as the vector $$(1, -2)$$ with respect to the basis of fundamental units (length, time). We could also require that exponents of the fundamental units be rational numbers and modify the proof accordingly, in which case the exponents in the pi groups can always be taken as rational numbers or even integers.

Rescaling units
Suppose we have quantities $$q_1, q_2, \dots, q_n$$, where the units of $$q_i$$ contain length raised to the power $$c_i$$. If we originally measure length in meters but later switch to centimeters, then the numerical value of $$q_i$$ would be rescaled by a factor of $$100^{c_i}$$. Any physically meaningful law should be invariant under an arbitrary rescaling of every fundamental unit; this is the fact that the pi theorem hinges on.

Formal proof
Given a system of $$n$$ dimensional variables $$q_1, \ldots, q_n$$ in $$\ell$$ fundamental (basis) dimensions, the dimensional matrix is the $$\ell \times n$$ matrix $$M$$ whose $$\ell$$ rows correspond to the fundamental dimensions and whose $$n$$ columns are the dimensions of the variables: the $$(i, j)$$th entry (where $$1 \leq i \leq \ell$$ and $$1 \leq j \leq n$$) is the power of the $$i$$th fundamental dimension in the $$j$$th variable. The matrix can be interpreted as taking in a combination of the variable quantities and giving out the dimensions of the combination in terms of the fundamental dimensions. So the $$\ell \times 1$$ (column) vector that results from the multiplication $$M\begin{bmatrix}a_1\\ \vdots \\ a_n\end{bmatrix}$$ consists of the units of $$q_1^{a_1}\,q_2^{a_2}\cdots q_n^{a_n}$$ in terms of the $$\ell$$ fundamental independent (basis) units.

If we rescale the $$i$$th fundamental unit by a factor of $$\alpha_i$$, then $$q_j$$ gets rescaled by $$\alpha_1^{-m_{1j}}\, \alpha_2^{-m_{2j}} \cdots \alpha_\ell^{-m_{\ell j}}$$, where $$m_{ij}$$ is the $$(i, j)$$th entry of the dimensional matrix. In order to convert this into a linear algebra problem, we take logarithms (the base is irrelevant), yielding $$\begin{bmatrix} \log{q_1} \\ \vdots \\ \log{q_n} \end{bmatrix} \mapsto \begin{bmatrix} \log{q_1} \\ \vdots \\ \log{q_n} \end{bmatrix} - M^\operatorname{T} \begin{bmatrix} \log{\alpha_1} \\ \vdots \\ \log{\alpha_\ell} \end{bmatrix},$$ which is an action of $$\mathbb{R}^\ell$$ on $$\mathbb{R}^n$$. We define a physical law to be an arbitrary function $$f \colon (\mathbb{R}^+)^n \to \mathbb{R}$$ such that $$(q_1, q_2, \dots, q_n)$$ is a permissible set of values for the physical system when $$f(q_1, q_2, \dots, q_n) = 0$$. We further require $$f$$ to be invariant under this action. Hence it descends to a function $$F \colon \mathbb{R}^n / \operatorname{im}{M^\operatorname{T}} \to \mathbb{R}$$. All that remains is to exhibit an isomorphism between $$\mathbb{R}^n/\operatorname{im}{M^\operatorname{T}}$$ and $$\mathbb{R}^p$$, the (log) space of pi groups $$(\log{\pi_1}, \log{\pi_2}, \dots, \log{\pi_p})$$.

We construct an $$n \times p$$ matrix $$K$$ whose columns are a basis for $$\ker{M}$$. It tells us how to embed $$\mathbb{R}^p$$ into $$\mathbb{R}^n$$ as the kernel of $$M$$. That is, we have an exact sequence
 * $$ 0 \to \mathbb{R}^p \xrightarrow{\ K \ } \mathbb{R}^n \xrightarrow{\ M\ } \mathbb{R}^\ell.$$

Taking tranposes yields another exact sequence
 * $$\mathbb{R}^\ell \xrightarrow{\ M^\operatorname{T}\ } \mathbb{R}^n \xrightarrow{\ K^\operatorname{T}\ } \mathbb{R}^p \to 0.$$

The first isomorphism theorem produces the desired isomorphism, which sends the coset $$v + M^\operatorname{T} \mathbb{R}^\ell$$ to $$K^\operatorname{T} v$$. This corresponds to rewriting the tuple $$(\log q_1, \log q_2, \dots, \log q_n)$$ into the pi groups $$(\log\pi_1, \log\pi_2, \dots, \log\pi_p)$$ coming from the columns of $$K$$.

The International System of Units defines seven base units, which are the ampere, kelvin, second, metre, kilogram, candela and mole. It is sometimes advantageous to introduce additional base units and techniques to refine the technique of dimensional analysis. (See orientational analysis and reference. )

Speed
This example is elementary but serves to demonstrate the procedure.

Suppose a car is driving at 100 km/h; how long does it take to go 200 km?

This question considers $$n = 3$$ dimensioned variables: distance $$d,$$ time $$t,$$ and speed $$v,$$ and we are seeking some law of the form $$t = \operatorname{Duration}(v, d).$$ Any two of these variables are dimensionally independent, but the three taken together are not. Thus there is $$p = n - k = 3 - 2 = 1$$ dimensionless quantity.

The dimensional matrix is $$M = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & \;\;\;1\\ 0 & 1 & -1 \end{bmatrix}$$ in which the rows correspond to the basis dimensions $$L$$ and $$T,$$ and the columns to the considered dimensions $$L, T, \text{ and } V,$$ where the latter stands for the speed dimension. The elements of the matrix correspond to the powers to which the respective dimensions are to be raised. For instance, the third column $$(1, -1),$$ states that $$V = L^0 T^0 V^1,$$ represented by the column vector $$\mathbf{v}=[0,0,1],$$ is expressible in terms of the basis dimensions as $$V = L^1 T^{-1} = L/T,$$ since $$M\mathbf{v} = [1,-1].$$

For a dimensionless constant $$\pi=L^{a_1}T^{a_2}V^{a_3},$$ we are looking for vectors $$\mathbf{a}=[a_1,a_2,a_3]$$ such that the matrix-vector product $$M \mathbf{a}$$ equals the zero vector $$[0, 0].$$ In linear algebra, the set of vectors with this property is known as the kernel (or nullspace) of the dimensional matrix. In this particular case its kernel is one-dimensional. The dimensional matrix as written above is in reduced row echelon form, so one can read off a non-zero kernel vector to within a multiplicative constant: $$\mathbf{a} = \begin{bmatrix} -1\\ \;\;\;1\\ \;\;\;1\\ \end{bmatrix}.$$

If the dimensional matrix were not already reduced, one could perform Gauss–Jordan elimination on the dimensional matrix to more easily determine the kernel. It follows that the dimensionless constant, replacing the dimensions by the corresponding dimensioned variables, may be written: $$\pi = d^{-1}t^1v^1 = tv/d.$$

Since the kernel is only defined to within a multiplicative constant, the above dimensionless constant raised to any arbitrary power yields another (equivalent) dimensionless constant.

Dimensional analysis has thus provided a general equation relating the three physical variables: $$F(\pi)=0,$$ or, letting $$C$$ denote a zero of function $$F,$$ $$\pi=C,$$ which can be written in the desired form (which recall was $$t = \operatorname{Duration}(v, d)$$) as $$t = C\frac{d}{v}.$$

The actual relationship between the three variables is simply $$d = vt.$$ In other words, in this case $$F$$ has one physically relevant root, and it is unity. The fact that only a single value of $$C$$ will do and that it is equal to 1 is not revealed by the technique of dimensional analysis.

The simple pendulum
We wish to determine the period $$T$$ of small oscillations in a simple pendulum. It will be assumed that it is a function of the length $$L,$$ the mass $$M,$$ and the acceleration due to gravity on the surface of the Earth $$g,$$ which has dimensions of length divided by time squared. The model is of the form $$f(T,M,L,g) = 0.$$

(Note that it is written as a relation, not as a function: $$T$$ is not written here as a function of $$M, L, \text{ and } g.$$)

Period, mass, and length are dimensionally independent, but acceleration can be expressed in terms of time and length, which means the four variables taken together are not dimensionally independent. Thus we need only $$p = n - k = 4 - 3 = 1$$ dimensionless parameter, denoted by $$\pi,$$ and the model can be re-expressed as $$F(\pi) = 0,$$ where $$\pi$$ is given by $$\pi = T^{a_1}M^{a_2}L^{a_3}g^{a_4}$$ for some values of $$a_1, a_2, a_3, a_4.$$

The dimensions of the dimensional quantities are: $$T = t, M = m, L = \ell, g = \ell/t^2.$$

The dimensional matrix is: $$\mathbf{M} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & -2\\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 1 &  1 \end{bmatrix}.$$

(The rows correspond to the dimensions $$t, m,$$ and $$\ell,$$ and the columns to the dimensional variables $$T, M, L, \text{ and } g.$$ For instance, the 4th column, $$(-2, 0, 1),$$ states that the $$g$$ variable has dimensions of $$t^{-2}m^0 \ell^1.$$)

We are looking for a kernel vector $$a = \left[a_1, a_2, a_3, a_4\right]$$ such that the matrix product of $$\mathbf{M}$$ on $$a$$ yields the zero vector $$[0,0,0].$$ The dimensional matrix as written above is in reduced row echelon form, so one can read off a kernel vector within a multiplicative constant: $$a = \begin{bmatrix}2\\ 0 \\ -1 \\ 1\end{bmatrix}.$$

Were it not already reduced, one could perform Gauss–Jordan elimination on the dimensional matrix to more easily determine the kernel. It follows that the dimensionless constant may be written: $$\begin{align} \pi &= T^2M^0L^{-1}g^1\\ &= gT^2/L \end{align}.$$ In fundamental terms: $$\pi = (t)^2 (m)^0 (\ell)^{-1} \left(\ell/t^2\right)^1 = 1,$$ which is dimensionless. Since the kernel is only defined to within a multiplicative constant, if the above dimensionless constant is raised to any arbitrary power, it will yield another equivalent dimensionless constant.

In this example, three of the four dimensional quantities are fundamental units, so the last (which is $$g$$) must be a combination of the previous. Note that if $$a_2$$ (the coefficient of $$M$$) had been non-zero then there would be no way to cancel the $$M$$ value; therefore $$a_2$$ be zero. Dimensional analysis has allowed us to conclude that the period of the pendulum is not a function of its mass $$M.$$ (In the 3D space of powers of mass, time, and distance, we can say that the vector for mass is linearly independent from the vectors for the three other variables. Up to a scaling factor, $$\vec g + 2 \vec T - \vec L$$ is the only nontrivial way to construct a vector of a dimensionless parameter.)

The model can now be expressed as: $$F\left(gT^2/L\right) = 0.$$

Then this implies that $$gT^2/L = C_i$$ for some zero $$C_i$$ of the function $$F.$$ If there is only one zero, call it $$C,$$ then $$gT^2/L = C.$$ It requires more physical insight or an experiment to show that there is indeed only one zero and that the constant is in fact given by $$C = 4\pi^2.$$

For large oscillations of a pendulum, the analysis is complicated by an additional dimensionless parameter, the maximum swing angle. The above analysis is a good approximation as the angle approaches zero.

Electric power
To demonstrate the application of the π theorem, consider the power consumption of a stirrer with a given shape. The power, P, in dimensions [M · L2/T3], is a function of the density, ρ [M/L3], and the viscosity of the fluid to be stirred, μ [M/(L · T)], as well as the size of the stirrer given by its diameter, D [L], and the angular speed of the stirrer, n [1/T]. Therefore, we have a total of n = 5 variables representing our example. Those n = 5 variables are built up from k = 3 independent dimensions, e.g., length: L (SI units: m), time: T (s), and mass: M (kg).

According to the π-theorem, the n = 5 variables can be reduced by the k = 3 dimensions to form p = n − k = 5 − 3 = 2 independent dimensionless numbers. Usually, these quantities are chosen as $\mathrm{Re} = {\frac{\rho n D^2}{\mu}}$, commonly named the Reynolds number which describes the fluid flow regime, and $N_\mathrm{p} = \frac{P}{\rho n^3 D^5}$ , the power number, which is the dimensionless description of the stirrer.

Note that the two dimensionless quantities are not unique and depend on which of the n = 5 variables are chosen as the k = 3 dimensionally independent basis variables, which, in this example, appear in both dimensionless quantities. The Reynolds number and power number fall from the above analysis if $\rho$, n, and D are chosen to be the basis variables. If, instead, $\mu$, n, and D are selected, the Reynolds number is recovered while the second dimensionless quantity becomes $N_\mathrm{Rep} = \frac{P}{\mu D^3 n^2}$. We note that $N_\mathrm{Rep}$ is the product of the Reynolds number and the power number.

Other examples
An example of dimensional analysis can be found for the case of the mechanics of a thin, solid and parallel-sided rotating disc. There are five variables involved which reduce to two non-dimensional groups. The relationship between these can be determined by numerical experiment using, for example, the finite element method.

The theorem has also been used in fields other than physics, for instance in sports science.

title: Buckingham π theorem


text:
Automatism

Automatism may refer to:

 * Automatic behavior, spontaneous verbal or motor behavior
 * Automatism (law), a defense used in criminal law
 * Automatism (toxicology), when an individual repeatedly takes a medication because the individual forgets previous doses
 * Automatic writing, the process, or product, of writing material that does not come from the conscious thoughts of the writer
 * Surrealist automatism, an art technique
 * Automatism (medicine), repetitive unconscious gestures, such as lip smacking, in certain types of epilepsy

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Automatism


text:
Low Countries

The Low Countries (de Lage Landen; les Pays-Bas), historically also known as the Netherlands (de Nederlanden), is a coastal lowland region in Northwestern Europe forming the lower basin of the Rhine–Meuse–Scheldt delta and consisting today of the three modern "Benelux" countries: Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands (Nederland, which is singular). Geographically and historically, the area can also include parts of France and Germany such as Nord and Pas-de-Calais and the German regions of East Frisia, Guelders and Cleves. During the Middle Ages, the Low Countries were divided into numerous semi-independent principalities.

Historically, the regions without access to the sea linked themselves politically and economically to those with access to form various unions of ports and hinterland, stretching inland as far as parts of the German Rhineland. Because of this, nowadays not only physically low-altitude areas, but also some hilly or elevated regions are considered part of the Low Countries, including Luxembourg and the south of Belgium. Within the European Union, the region's political grouping is still referred to as the Benelux (short for Belgium-Netherlands-Luxembourg).

During the Roman Empire, the region contained a militarised frontier and contact point between Rome and Germanic tribes. The Low Countries were the scene of the early independent trading centres that marked the reawakening of Europe in the 12th century. In that period, they rivalled northern Italy as one of the most densely populated regions of Western Europe. Guilds and councils governed most of the cities along with a figurehead ruler; interaction with their ruler was regulated by a strict set of rules describing what the latter could and could not expect. All of the regions mainly depended on trade, manufacturing and the encouragement of the free flow of goods and craftsmen. Dutch and French dialects were the main languages used in secular city life.

Terminology
Historically, the term Low Countries arose at the Court of the Dukes of Burgundy, who used the term les pays de par deçà ("the lands over here") for the Low Countries as opposed to les pays de par delà ("the lands over there") for the Duchy of Burgundy and the Free County of Burgundy, which were part of their realm but geographically disconnected from the Low Countries. Governor Mary of Hungary used both the expressions les pays de par deça and Pays d'Embas ("lands down here"), which evolved to Pays-Bas or Low Countries. Today the term is typically fitted to modern political boundaries and used in the same way as the term Benelux.

The name of the country of the Netherlands has the same etymology and origin as the name for the region Low Countries, due to "nether" meaning "low". In the Dutch language itself De Lage Landen is the modern term for Low Countries, and De Nederlanden (plural) is in use for the 16th century domains of Charles V, the historic Low Countries, while Nederland (singular) is the normal Dutch name for the country of the Netherlands. However, in official use, the name of the Dutch kingdom is still Kingdom of the Netherlands, Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (plural). This name derives from the 19th-century origins of the kingdom which originally included present-day Belgium.

In Dutch, and to a lesser extent in English, the Low Countries colloquially means the Netherlands and Belgium, sometimes the Netherlands and Flanders—the Dutch-speaking north of Belgium. For example, a Low Countries derby (Derby der Lage Landen), is a sports event between Belgium and the Netherlands.

Belgium separated in 1830 from the (northern) Netherlands. The new country took its name from Belgica, the Latinised name for the Low Countries, as it was known during the Eighty Years' War (1568–1648). The Low Countries were in that war divided in two parts. On one hand, the northern Federated Netherlands or Belgica Foederata rebelled against King Philip II of Spain; on the other, the southern Royal Netherlands or Belgica Regia remained loyal to the Spanish king. This divide laid the early foundation for the later modern states of Belgium and the Netherlands.

History
The region politically had its origins in the Carolingian empire; more precisely, most of the people were within the Duchy of Lower Lotharingia. After the disintegration of Lower Lotharingia, the Low Countries were brought under the rule of various lordships until they came to be in the hands of the Valois Dukes of Burgundy. Hence, a large part of the Low Countries came to be referred to as the Burgundian Netherlands. After the reign of the Valois Dukes ended, much of the Low Countries were controlled by the House of Habsburg. This area was referred to as the Habsburg Netherlands, which was also called the Seventeen Provinces up to 1581. Even after the political secession of the autonomous Dutch Republic (or "United Provinces") in the north, the term "Low Countries" continued to be used to refer collectively to the region. The region was temporarily united politically between 1815 and 1839, as the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, before this split into the three modern countries of the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.

Early history
The Low Countries were part of the Roman provinces of Gallia Belgica and Germania Inferior. They were inhabited by Belgic and Germanic tribes. In the 4th and 5th century, Frankish tribes had entered this Roman region and came to run it increasingly independently. They came to be ruled by the Merovingian dynasty, under which dynasty the southern part (below the Rhine) was re-Christianised.

Frankish empire
By the end of the 8th century, the Low Countries formed a core part of a much expanded Francia and the Merovingians were replaced by the Carolingian dynasty. In 800, the Pope crowned and appointed Charlemagne Emperor of the re-established Roman Empire.

After the death of Charlemagne, Francia was divided in three parts among his three grandsons. The middle slice, Middle Francia, was ruled by Lothair I, and thereby also came to be referred to as "Lotharingia" or "Lorraine". Apart from the original coastal County of Flanders, which was within West Francia, the rest of the Low Countries were within the lowland part of this, "Lower Lorraine".

After the death of Lothair, the Low Countries were coveted by the rulers of both West Francia and East Francia. Each tried to swallow the region and to merge it with their spheres of influence. Thus, the Low Countries consisted of fiefs whose sovereignty resided with either the Kingdom of France or the Holy Roman Empire. While the further history the Low Countries can be seen as the object of a continual struggle between these two powers, the title of Duke of Lothier was coveted in the low countries for centuries.

Duchy of Burgundy
In the 14th and 15th century, separate fiefs came gradually to be ruled by a single family through royal intermarriage. This process culminated in the rule of the House of Valois, who were the rulers of the Duchy of Burgundy. At the height of Burgundian influence, the Low Countries became the political, cultural, and economic centre of Northern Europe, noted for its crafts and luxury goods, notably early Netherlandish painting, which is the work of artists who were active in the flourishing cities of Bruges, Ghent, Mechelen, Leuven, Tournai and Brussels, all in present-day Belgium. Musicians of the Franco-Flemish School were highly sought by the leading classes of all Europe.

Seventeen Provinces
In 1477 the Burgundian holdings in the area passed through an heiress—Mary of Burgundy—to the Habsburgs. Charles V, who inherited the territory in 1506, was named ruler by the States General and styled himself as Heer der Nederlanden (lit. 'Lord of the Netherlands'). He continued to rule the territories as a multitude of duchies and principalities until the Low Countries were eventually united into one indivisible territory, the Seventeen Provinces, covered by the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549, while retaining existing customs, laws, and forms of government within the provinces.

The Pragmatic Sanction transformed the agglomeration of lands into a unified entity, of which the Habsburgs would be the heirs. By streamlining the succession law in all Seventeen Provinces and declaring that all of them would be inherited by one heir, Charles effectively united the Netherlands as one entity. After Charles' abdication in 1555, the Seventeen Provinces passed to his son, Philip II of Spain.

Division
The Pragmatic Sanction is said to be one example of the Habsburg contest with particularism that contributed to the Dutch Revolt. Each of the provinces had its own laws, customs and political practices. The new policy, imposed from the outside, angered many inhabitants, who viewed their provinces as distinct entities. It and other monarchical acts, such as the creation of bishoprics and promulgation of laws against heresy, stoked resentments, which fired the eruption of the Dutch Revolt.

After the northern Seven United Provinces of the seventeen declared their independence from Habsburg Spain in 1581, the ten provinces of the Southern Netherlands remained occupied by the Army of Flanders under Spanish service and are therefore sometimes called the Spanish Netherlands. In 1713, under the Treaty of Utrecht following the War of the Spanish Succession, what was left of the Spanish Netherlands was ceded to Austria and thus became known as the Austrian Netherlands.

Late Modern Period
The United Kingdom of the Netherlands (1815–1830) temporarily united the Low Countries again before it split into the three modern countries of the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.

During the early months of World War I (around 1914), the Central Powers invaded the Low Countries of Luxembourg and Belgium in what has been come to be known as the German invasion of Belgium. It led to the German occupation of the two countries. However, the German advance into France was quickly halted, causing a military stalemate for most of the war. In the end, a total of approximately 56,000 people were killed in the invasion.

During World War II, when Adolf Hitler's gaze turned his strategy west toward France, the Low Countries were an easy route around the imposing French Maginot Line. He ordered a conquest of the Low Countries with the shortest possible notice, to forestall the French, and prevent Allied air power from threatening the strategic Ruhr Area    of Germany. It would also provide the basis for a long-term air and sea campaign against Britain. As much as possible of the border areas in northern France should be occupied. Germany's Blitzkrieg tactics rapidly overpowered the defences of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg.

All three countries were occupied from May 1940 until early 1945. During the occupation, their governments were forced into exiled in Britain. In 1944, they signed the London Customs Convention, laying the foundation for the eventual Benelux Economic Union, an important forerunner of the EEC (later the EU).

Literature
One of the Low Countries' earliest literary figures is the blind poet Bernlef, from c. 800, who sang both Christian psalms and pagan verses. Bernlef is representative of the coexistence of Christianity and Germanic polytheism in this time period.

The earliest examples of written literature include the Wachtendonck Psalms, a collection of twenty five psalms that originated in the Moselle-Frankish region around the middle of the 9th century.

title: Low Countries


text:
Talk:Dog/Archive 2

Admins: (un)-protection
Attention all patrolling Admins:

I -- we Wiki users -- understand that Wiki should be open and gnu-ish. However, such a policy does not extend to casual vandalism, and this article takes more than its fair share. There is a clear case for permanent semi-protection, since the damage done by these vandals reflects badly on Wikipedia's credibility and child safety.

We must point out that those users who have a genuine and legitimate need to edit this article can always do so by following the established Wiki procedures: use his/her account, or get one and wait a week. This eliminates the need to plead for unprotection. Gordon | Talk, 31 August 2006 @04:05 UTC

Introduction Section
Just a point on grammar. The intro says "Dogs were domesticated from wolves as recently as 15,000 years ago, or perhaps as early as 100,000 years ago" - 100,000 years ago is longer than 15,00 years ago! Perhaps it should read "Dogs were domesticanted form wolves as recently as 15,000 years ago, or perhaps as far back as 100,000 years..."?? Or something along those lines. As it is it doesn't quite make sense. -- jakeleonard 02:48 October 29 2006 (UTC)

This whole section needs to change. There are only 14 breeds that have ANY wolf DNA in them. Afghan Hound (Afghanistan) Akita (Japan) Alaskan Malamute (United States (Alaska)) Basenji (Congo) Chow Chow (China) Lhasa Apso (Tibet) Pekingese (China) Saluki (Egypt,Persia) Samoyed (Siberia) Shar Pei (China) Shiba Inu (Japan) Shih Tzu (China/Tibet) Siberian Husky (Siberia) Tibetian Terrier (Tibet) No other dog even shows a Wolf gene. Irishgt 18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Could you quote a source for that? You seem to be suggesting that Alsatians are more distant from wolves than mankind is from grass! -- Ian Dalziel 18:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * read the article down below on Ancient breeds from 2004, it's in the wiki section on ancient breeds. Other dogs have a DNA gene pool common to other breeds which tie the canine together but only the 14 ancient breeds actually have wolf DNA. That's why there are only 14 breeds connected to the wolf. Irishgt 20:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 * That article says that those breeds have fewest genetic differences from wolves - not that only those breeds share any DNA with wolves. All living things share some DNA - and all dogs share most of their DNA with wolves. -- Ian Dalziel 06:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't believe that to be the case. The study Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog by Vila, Salvolainen, et al., conclusively proved that all dogs are DNA-descended from wolves. With mitochondrial DNA from 67 different breeds, and 160+ wolves at 27 localities, they proved that breakoff likely happened over 100,000 years ago, and the divergence is great.

Clade I included 19 of the 26 dog haplotypes. This group contained representatives of many common breeds as well as ancient breeds such as the dingo, New Guinea singing Jog, African basenji, and greyhound (14). Clade II included dog haplotype D8, from two Scandinavian breeds (elkhound and jamthund), and was closely related to two wolf haplotypes found in Italy, France, Romania, and Greece (W4 and W5). Clade III contained three dog haplotypes (D7, D19, and D21) found in a variety of breeds such as the German shepherd, Siberian husky, and Mexican hairless. Finally, clade IV contained three haplotypes (D6, D10, and D24) that were identical or very similar to a wolf haplotype (W6) found in Romania and western Russia, which suggests recent hybridization between dogs and wolves. Many breeds contained representatives of more than one dog haplotype grouping. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm CMacMillan 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 * The only problem with that test has to do with the same statement on the Wiki page on ancient breeds. "There is some controversy over the results of the study, as some have noted that breeding between wolves and specific breeds in recent times may have led to inaccurate results. As a result of these breedings, the offspring would have gained genetic similarities with wolves and may mask the truth about the real differences between the breed and wolves before these interbreedings."

It will take more indepth studies or purer lines in order to get correct results. I can't belive you actually put the Mexican Hairless in there. That dog has been argued to be one of the least pure dogs alive. they can't even tell where it actually came from Africa or China. And the clay statue they found that dated back 5700 years is now said to be a Chihuahua. Irishgt 20:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also check out the WIKI section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_dog_breeds and follow the source links. The 2004 study showing that the majority of ancient breeds did NOT originate in Asia. Example is the Chow Chow is a subfamily of the Siberian Husky not older which is stated in this article. Shiba Inu is an ancient breed also but it is linked to the Egyption Basenji in DNa with the Basenji coming out on top and older. And last but not least the Siberian Husky is a younger offshoot of the Alaskan Malamute which is listed as the 2nd oldest of the Ancient Breeds with Saluki being the oldest which is from Africa. If you read the link above and follow external link 1 which is from 2004 not 2002 link the one you have listed here you will see that ALL you info is wrong. Irishgt 18:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Lifespan?
Great article, but the expected lifespan of a dog seems to have been omitted. Someone should scrounge up some information on that range.
 * Yes, that would be nice. I mean, I know the approximate figures, but I don't know the actual numbers, like average lifespan, max. lifespan and such. It would be great if someone would dig that numbers up and put them on page. Even grey wolf has lifespan clearly stated! --Arny 19:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Added summary & link to appropriate article. Thanks for the were named because they looked like X" being reinforced.

Origin...
At least according to Konrad Lorenz's "Man Meets Dog", the ancestor of most modern dog breeds is actually a jackal, not a wolf. 82.139.47.117 21:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)suggestion. Elf | Talk 20:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not correct. Though a little interbreeding may have occurred, mitochondrial DNA and behavior studies show dogs behave in a way very similiar to wolves. In fact, dog behavior shows almost identical patterns to wolf behavior. Jackal may have been domesticated, but most breeds come wolves. Stop Me Now! 21:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Just a thought: When we talk about dog life expectancies, are we referring to the ages at which they naturally die, or at which they are euthanized? A huge amount of domestic dogs die in this way because the treatment they require is too expensive, because their quality of life is so poor or for various other reasons. Surely this fudges the statistics we have? With wild animals we can say how long they are likely to naturally live for, but with domestic animals this isn't quite the same. The question is, how much does this bias the figures (if at all)? --StoneColdCrazy 01:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Interesting question. I've never seen that addressed in these discussions. However, I suspect that it wouldn't bias it by too much because at least in my experience dogs aren't usually euthanized because it's inconvenient to continue their care but because it's likely at best to extend their lives by only a short amount. Personal examples--my 17-year old husky who gradually got to the point of not being able to stand up on her own from a down, then not being able to stand even when lifted, to not being able to even roll up into a "down" when lying on her side... in the wild, she'd probably not have lasted more than 13 or 14 years (if anywhere near that) when the arthritis set in, and certainly not 17 years, and certainly if we hadn't put her to sleep then, it's not clear that she'd have lived more than a few days more.  Also my 9-year old dog dying of cancer; when he started having violent convulsions and we put him to sleep, he'd have died 4 months earlier if we hadn't treated the tumor on his heart, and even so, if he hadn't been euthanized, it appeared that the tumor had spread to his brain and it's doubtful he'd have made it more than a couple more weeks at the outside.  So, from my experience, medical care *increases* the lifespan quite a bit more than euthanasia *decreases* it.  Which still might be a bias but not in the way I think you were thinking. :-)  I would also guess, but have no proof, that when they're compiling life expectancies, they are NOT including things like the millions of pets put to sleep at animal shelters because there's no room for them. Elf | Talk 01:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I see exactly what you mean, Elf - you've hit the nail on the head when it comes to better expressing what I meant to say regarding to how we take care of our animals. I'm starting to wonder if we might have any natural statistics for the life expectancies for the domestic animals we keep. How long does a cow usually live for, a sheep, a hen? --StoneColdCrazy 03:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the article refers to the dog as being both a subspecies of the wolf, and descended from the wolf. Surely the fact that the domestic dog is a subspecies of the wolf means that the dog is still a wolf. Is there any reason why the wording shouldn't be changed to 'descended from one of the wild subspecies of the grey wolf.' I'm no expert on taxonomy and the like, so I'm not insistent about it being changed, bit I'd just like to hear what someone else thinks about this. Thanks, Will 27/8/06

DOGS ARE NOT A SUBSPECIES OF WOLF!!!! Only 14 dogs share a common gene: Afghan Hound (Afghanistan) Akita (Japan) Alaskan Malamute (United States (Alaska)) Basenji (Congo) Chow Chow (China) Lhasa Apso (Tibet) Pekingese (China) Saluki (Egypt,Persia) Samoyed (Siberia) Shar Pei (China) Shiba Inu (Japan) Shih Tzu (China/Tibet) Siberian Husky (Siberia) Tibetian Terrier (Tibet) That's it Irishgt 18:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Did man domesticate wolf or did man domesticate dog?
Dogs had evolved from wolves in nature earlier than mans domestication of the dog (dogs are even depicted as a major threat and predator on the early human species equal to wolves).

Did wolf evolve into dog by nature and then again a second time by humans help? Or wasn't rather the animal that was domesticated already a dog when it was domesticated? This is contrary to the popular myth that man caught a wolf of which man bred all the variations of the domestic dogs; this would say that wolf evolved to dog, man domesticated the dog and all the domestic dog variations comes from the dog. The domesticated wolf seems like an error repreated so many times it becomes a truth.

Of Kittens
Why does "kitten" have its own article while "puppy" leads to a disambiguation which then leads to dog? This is an outrage. :P  The_Irrelevant_One 06:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Irrelevant One, I think this article could be made better by putting in only a little about the lifestaged where a dog is considered to be "puppy" and linking to an article that has in depth information about puppies, including development, needs etc. This article would be made a little more compact. Stop Me Now! 16:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree too, there is a lot about puppies which can be said seperate from the broader category of dog. 198.179.243.50 16:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Killing Dogs in the UK
This article says that killing dogs, even if they are on your private land, is illegal in the UK. Although I don't have the relevant statutory provision to hand, that is factually incorrect - it is perfectly legal to kill a dog if it is worrying livestock. I am also unaware of any statutory prohibition on killing dogs, save those laws that prohibit cruelty to animals in general. Accordingly, unless someone feels different I propose removing this line.
 * There is no such law.--CosmoKramer 13:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In the US, if you run over a dog you are legally expected to stop and find the owner, but if you run over a cat there is no such obligation. Something to do with dogs being considered tools or workers and cats being considered just useless lap-cozies or something. Don't ask for refs, this is OR from a law class I took 30 yrs ago... User:Pedant 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Break off a dog origins article
(moved initial Q from User talk:Elf:) Opinion request: I notice the dog article has a section on the ancestory of the dog as a wolf. Do you feel it might be time to create a separate article Origins of the dog or of similiar title? Cordially SirIsaacBrock 17:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * It's possible, as this article is certainly a long one. We'd have to come up with a good summary to leave included here. I don't know how much more info could really be stated, though, since the domestication of the dog occurred in prehistory and even the genetic data is indefinite so far--all of which it already says here. So it might be a very short article. I could go either way.  Elf | Talk 20:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi, I would suggest leaving the dog article section alone, to avoid edit wars. I was in the process of cleaning up History of dog fighting breeds and noticed there is no "Dog Origin" article to link to, so I starting writing my own. I think we need a separate article so people can discuss this topic.  My 2 cents.  Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea. The article could talk about the domestication of wolves and how they have changed in appearance and temperment. It would be good to compare dogs their ancestors and show how they have changed. Stop Me Now! 16:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: figures to be used
We have good, genuine figures illustrating anatomy of dogs on the Slovak Wikipedia. I have also converted 2 of them so far into .svg format for easier translation. You could use them, if you are able to label it in English. Images are included in the article sk:Pes_domáci and the converted ones are Image:Nos psa.svg and Image:Typ ucha u psa.svg. If you use them, upload them on Commons and add links to other versions of the same image. helix84 13:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad link needing to be fixed!
"Dangerous substances Some foods commonly enjoyed by humans are dangerous to dogs, including chocolate (Theobromine poisoning), onions, grapes and raisins, some types of gum, turkey" Under that section "turkey" leads to the country of turkey, rather than the food. Can someone fix that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.200.30 (talk • contribs) 14:57, March 24, 2006  (UTC)
 * I've fixed the turkey and gum links. I presume that "gum" refers to chewing gum, but it really isn't very clear. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Dog Breed Info Box
Each box has an image. I think we should consider adding one video to each box as they are available now at google. A picture says a thousand words but a video says more :)

Cordially SirIsaacBrock 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm under the impression that Wikipedia has an images-only policy, mostly for lower-bandwidth users and simplicity. This isn't really relevant to the dog article anyway. However, it's an interesting concept - put this up for discussion somewhere where it belongs and can be discussed properly. Fiskars007 00:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no image only policy. Uploads are limited in size however. Maybe an animated .gif? This actually is where the discussion belongs I think. Go ahead and discuss it. User:Pedant 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture Captions
"Some Dogs, like this Weimaraner, are predators suited to chasing after, leaping at, and killing prey."

Oh come on!! First of all, the Weimaraner (or any other breed of domesticated canine) is not a predator - yes it could theoretically kill an animal if it had to, but it would have to be pretty desparate to try it. Therefore, it is not suited to "chasing after, leaping at and killing prey". Weimaraners are retrievers, bred to sit patiently while the human brought the animal down, and then to go and retrieve it where it fell. They were almost never used to kill the animals themselves, unlike certain sighthounds and terriers that were. Secondly, as I've pointed out, most dogs were bred to help with the hunting (if they are hunting breeds) but not to actually kill the animals themselves. Granted, Salukis did hunt gazelle in the Middle Age years ago, and Terriers can catch and kill rodents on thier own, but this caption makes it sound like the dogs are out there like tigers, feeding themselves by pouncing on pheasents! Can someone please fix either the caption or the picture?--The Wizard of Magicland 17:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * good catch. Me fix.Gzuckier 15:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, just to nitpick the English, why is "dog" capatilised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wizard of Magicland (talk • contribs)
 * Grammatically, it should not be. However, some editors believe that every occurrance of an article's subject, and sometimes any species name, must be capitalized, which I have not found supported in the manual of style.  Attempts to conform the style grammatically tend to be reversed, so it's a waste of time to try it.  [[Image:Tycon.jpg]]Coyoty 20:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Me fix anyway. Gzuckier 15:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * get right down to it everything is a 'waste' of 'time', both of which are invented concepts. Now is when things happen. User:Pedant 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Diet
The diet section states that, "Some sources suggest that a dog fed on a strict vegetarian diet may develop dilated cardiomyopathy since it lacks L-carnitine.[3]"

However, when you look at the wiki page for carnitine, the natural sources of this substance are listed as: "The best source of natural carnitine is in red meat and dairy products. Other natural sources of Carnitine include nuts and seeds (e.g pumpkin, sunflower, sesame), legumes or pulses (beans, peas, lentils, peanuts), vegetables (artichokes, asparagus, beet greens, broccoli, brussels sprouts, collard greens, garlic, mustard greens, okra, parsley), fruits (apricots, bananas), cereals (buckwheat, corn, millet, oatmeal, rice bran, rye, whole wheat, wheat bran, wheat germ) and other 'health' foods (bee pollen, brewer's yeast, carob, kale)."

If this is correct, I don't see how a strict vegetarian diet (should this be changed to vegan, to be more specific and to reference further wikipedia reading?) would lack carnitine. The paragraph seems to be expressing only one viewpoint at the cost of the other and the words "some sources" and "may" are very vague, though I'm glad the statement is referenced.

I'd suggest modifying the paragraph to something more balanced such as this:

"Some sources suggest that a dog fed on a strict vegetarian diet may develop dilated cardiomyopathy since it lacks L-carnitine, [3] however, maintaining a balanced diet is also a factor since L-carnitine is found naturally in many nuts, seeds, beans, vegetables, fruits and whole grains."

All references to L-carnitine should be linked to the carnitine wikipedia entry for further reading. Limes 05:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I linked all references to L-carnitine to the appropriate page and noticed that "strict vegetarian" redirects to veganism anyway so I left it as is and linked it as well. Modified text as above. Limes 18:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that there exist dangers with feeding vegtibles and grains as a primary source of food - bloat. Also, some grains cause allergies in dogs. Also, a dog's digestive system is desgined for meats, not plant matter, though eating some a few times a week won't be harmful. The shorter digestive track and teeth desgined for tearing and grasping, not grinding.

DOGS ARE NOT VEGETARIANS...Get rid of this whole article if you are gonna put up FALSE information. they can eat veggies/grains WITH meat but not as a substitute. Irishgt 18:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Diet - Dangerous Substances
It may be worth finding out and listing what makes each of the listed items dangerous to dogs. Chocolate I know about -- it contains "theobromine", a compound similar to caffeine which zaps the central nervous system and the heart. OTH, all the discussion I could find about turkey revolves around the "indigestible" skin and large amounts of fat. I should say that many of these sites recommend _cooking_ bones for the mutt, a practice my vet sternly and vehemently warned us against! Gordon|Talk, 24 April 2006 @13:05 UTC

I have also heard that Ibuprofen/Advil is toxic to dogs? Any citations for that or could anyone collaborate that claim? 24.127.37.76 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * A quick Google search (http://www.google.com.ph/search?q=ibuprofin+dogs) turned up a bunch of hits. Example: http://www.shakervet.com/household_medications.html -- Boracay Bill 23:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "_cooking_", but my vet claims that bones are fine for dogs as long as they are raw, since it is the cooked ones that snap easily and can do damage. He picks up raw bones with shards of meat on them from a local butchers and gives them to his dogs regularly (so perhaps they are cooking bones in that they might be used in soup or so on). However, if you meant that you should prepare and cook special bones for your dog, yes, this is definatly a bad idea! I wouldn't classify turkey as a dangerous substance just on the measure that it is fatty - that just makes it unhealthy but not harmful per se. You're right about the theobromine though, and I do agree that we should expand this section to include further details.--The Wizard of Magicland 16:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The other issue with bones is the RAW diet. I know alot of people who give chicken and turkey wingtips 'raw' to their dogs. However, would you like to be kissed or licked by a dog after they ate that. That's my only concern. Also I wouldn't appreciate a dog kissing a child after eating that. RAW diets (and BARF?) do include raw meats. If your concerned with bones you get at the pet store they are usually sterilized then treated with flavour but from I know they are not 'cooked'. Might be some help. LdyDragonfly 20:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

 * You're right about the kissing bit! They pong a bit, don't they? Still, it only lasts an hour or so :) Gordon | Talk, 5 June 2006 @12:24 UTC

Missing Image
I can't edit the page, but there's a broken image on it right now. Kushboy 17:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

fixed. Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 17:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Terminology
Yes, the correct term for a female dog (and most female canids) is bitch, but the terminology section has the etymology reversed, and colloquial usage of the word bitch has no place in an article such as this. Baleeted. -- horse   dreamer  07:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the list that says how many breeds are known to live on the world????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pig,guinea (talk • contribs)

Search for "List of Dog Breeds"

"An alternative designation..."
The entire paragraph beginning "An alternative designation" is incomprehensible hash.

 * I've removed the paragraph. As you pointed out, the text was gibberish, and the claim that was attributed to the Journal of Archaeological Sciences #31, May 2004 does not exist. The article The naming of wild animal species and their domestic derivatives is there, but in no way outlines the claim for the latinate names listed. CMacMillan 22:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Improvement to 'Wolf Ancestors'
From the article

Although all wolves belong to the species Canis lupus, there are (or were) many subspecies that had developed a distinctive appearance, social structure, and other traits. For example, the Japanese Wolf and the Eastern Timber Wolf possess different distinctive colouration, hunting and social structures. It would be better to subsitute Indian Wolf for Japanese Wolf in the above sentance. The Japanese Wolf could refer to one of two distinct sub-species, both of which are extinct, making the certainty of their categorisation as a sub-species of Wolf disputable. GameKeeper 09:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Unneccisary, Unsubstantiated or Incorrect info.
1. "The constellations Canes Venatici, Canis Major and Canis Minor are so named for their perceived resemblance to dogs."

-Ok, IMO these are the kind of things that need to be tightened up. First, its irrelevant, but worse its wrong. I guess Canis Major looks like a dog - as much as a cow or a horse or a... Canis Minor is composed of 2 commonly discerable stars and 7 others that are near the limits of human vision assuming no light pollution. I guess its a wiener dog, sorry dachshund. Canes Venatici is only 2 stars, dim and very dim. If any similar referances are retained I would propose tying Canis Major and Minor to the whole mans best freind thing, because they are orion's hunting dog's and I presume were named to give him these treasured (apparently since ancient times) companions; not because they looked like dogs. Especially in the case of C. Minor... I just don't like to see popular assumptions, ie -"constellations

 * That idea may just have been tenable in 1954, but it isn't now. Ben-w 07:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Genetic fossil evidence
Edited quote from the article:
 * Dogs were first domesticated [...] perhaps as early as 100,000 years ago based upon recent genetic fossil and DNA evidence.

1. What does "genetic fossil and DNA" mean? I don't understand "genetic fossil."

 * Try "genetic, fossil..." Gordon | Talk, 05:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

2. I tried looking for fossil evidence in the referenced links, but couldn't find any. One of the references mentions dog could have evolved "as much as 135,000 years ago," but that was through genetic studies, not palaeontology.

So is there a good reference on fossil canines? I thought I saw something about dog fossils lately, but I can't seem to find it again. --Kjoonlee 11:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Mimics?
This is a stupid thing to say:

"The loyalty and devotion that dogs demonstrate as part of their natural instincts as pack animals closely mimics the human idea of love and friendship, leading many dog owners to view their pets as full-fledged family members"

Can you define the difference between "loyalty and devotion" and "love and friendship"? And anyway, in what way does the instinctual behavior of dogs mimic that of humans? Didn't dogs behave in this way long before they were domesticated?

I would put it another way:

"Dogs show loyalty and devotion due to their natural instinct as pack animals. This behavior is close to the human idea of love and friendship, leading many dog owners to accept their pets into their families as full-fledged family members."

 * Dogs are cool, luv em.--John Lake 17:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The entire section on paedomorphism is, in my opinion, speculative and nonsense. I have never read such a silly pseudo-scientific bunch of trash. Much of the speculation is not only unfounded, but, in my opinion, utterly false. Darwin would cringe at this nonsense. I will leave it to anyone with greater expertise than I to repair and rewrite if appropriate. 66.108.4.183 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Nash's Companion
 * "Coppinger notes the great, and usually unappreciated, difference between guarding and herding breeds. Herders control movement of sheep by using predatory behaviors of adult dogs---stalking, chasing, biting, and barking---but inhibiting the final outcome. These breeds feature adult traits of form and behavior; they display no neotenous characteristics. Guard dogs, on the other hand, simply move with and among the flock. They work alone and do not control the flock's motion. They afford protection primarily by their size, for few coyotes will attack a flock accompanied by a one-hundred-pound dog. They behave toward the sheep as puppies do towards other dogs---licking the sheep's face as a puppy might in asking for food, chasing and biting with the playfulness of young dogs, even mounting sheep as young dogs mount each other is sexual play and rehearsal. This neotenous behavior accompanies a persistently juvenile morphology, as these dogs grow short faces, big eyes, and floppy ears. Coppinger has raised guarding and herding dogs together from babyhood. They show little difference in behavior until puberty. Herders then develop the standard traits of adulthood---border collies begin to stalk, while retrievers and pointers live up to their names. But the guarders develop no new patterns and simply retain their youthful traits. Thus, a valuable set of features can be recruited together because they already exist as the normal form and behavior of juvenile dogs. Patterns of growth are rich reservoirs, not sterile strictures." Stephen J. Gould, Eight Little Piggies: Reflections in Natural History 1993 pp:394 Gzuckier 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally completely and will forever agree! Most of this is mere oppinion! I am proud to sign my name: B katt 500 04:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

please do not add obscure referane to humas who totoure and murder dogs
It just some obscure tradintion in Far Aisa along with Rhinors horn some asians think improve potens. None off these think actual works. Is is just middel aged overwight men who are have lost theire potenence and are desperate to regain it. They'll tried anything include. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.48.162.173 (talk • contribs) 22:30, July 6, 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but I don't understand your problem with that paragraph or why you keep calling it vandalism. It seems factual to me. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I follow your point. I thought you were referring to the paragraph you've been trying to remove, about the consumption of dog meat. I have not seen anything there that mentions "torture", or Rhino horns, or anything related. The paragraph only mention the fact that in certain countries, dog meat is used for human consumption. As such, it looks correct to me. It is not sourced (you can tag it with if you want), but a quick search shows that it is certainly correct. Please do not remove this paragraph again without a good reason. Schutz 12:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have good reason it is not include in either cat, horse or man. Please stopp adding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.162.173 (talk)

 * Although you may find the fact of human consumption of dog meat offensive, it is, nevertheless, a simple and quite encyclopedic fact of life. The fact that human consumption of cat meat and cannibalism has not been included in their respective articles (you will find that it is included in the horse article) does not justify removal of this paragraph (though you should feel free to add to those articles).

 * I would suggest that you try to get over it and move on. I'm sure that if you look around Wikipedia long enough, you'll find other unappetising facts here and there-- you can't simply go around deleting the ones that you don't like.  Wikipedia is uncensored.  Period.  -- Mwanner | Talk 13:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not pleas reoword it. An stop vandalism this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.162.173 (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2006
 * Blanking text from a page is vandalism. Reverting the blanking when the text is legitimate is not. Schutz 07:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert is sudde be include as dog abuse, and please expand articel about abuse of dogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.162.173 (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2006

You consider it dog abuse. You are looking at it therefore as an opinion. The practice of eating dogs in Asia is perfectly legal there, and it is often the accepted social norm. In certain countries, which I, and I assume you come from, it is considered wrong. But countries in the middle east consider the normal (at least where I come from) consumption of pigs to be unclean and gross. And Hindu´s consider the consumption of cattle to be wrong too. 80.36.137.15 13:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Laurellien

...dog behavior?
So... Sorry if this is a silly question, but what's up with the "Dog Behavior" section? It only links to an article that dosn't exist - an article that probably should exist. Was that article deleted, or has no one gotten around to it? The Son Of Nothing 03:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * i second the question. Gzuckier 15:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Famous dog people
I was wondering if there is any support for a category for people that have made a significant contribution to dogs ? Famous breeders, owners, show people etc... Some help on the name of the +cat would be appreciated. SirIsaacBrock 14:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Dog-related professions and professionals is a good start. Elf | Talk 02:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert Unjustified
I feel the last revert removing the information about dogs being suseptable to heat exhaustion was unjustifed. Can we Discuss this? What i need to change? I feel it adds value to the article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRegan (talk • contribs)
 * I re-added your content, but replaced the reference with a .edu one (versus the commercial one that you'd added). Wikipedia is not a good place to try to boost traffic to commercial sites. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Poorly Writen
Does someone want to fix the "Dangerous Substances" section? It seems very poorly written. I'd fix it but me no good writer...

"Some foods commonly enjoyed by humans are dangerous to dogs, including chocolate (Theobromine poisoning), onions, grapes and raisins (though this is as of yet unsubstantiated), some types of gum, and Macadamia nuts. Now that it is thought that the only dangerous substance in chocolate is the cocoa, this means that white chocolate can be used as a rare treat."

...I mean seriously, WTF? -- 66.215.121.208 16:30, 25 July 2006

Diet
Dogs need bones as well as a big range of healthy RAW meats and vegetables crushed in a blender

so that they resemble the insides of offals. Dogs have 0.2% different DNA to wolves so we should feed them the same as what wolves have

eaten for milleniums. It's their evolutionary diet. Wolves used to eat the carcasses of animals

they caught, and the feces of animals. We need to match this by providing the same nutrients of their evolutionary diet. Some dogs may

eat vegetables whole but the reason they generally don't is because you can't change the

evolution of a dog in 80 or so years. They need to be mashed up. Also their is no way a dog can

live properly healthily on a vegetarian diet. No way whatsoever. It contradicts every bit of

evolutionary principles. I learnt this all off probably one of the best person on dogs in the

world. Geoff Bowers who alone in 1 year changed the amount of police dog alsations got into the

police force from 5% to 85%. He won dog handler of the year once. If you need the proper diet

of a dog reference or buy the BARF diet by Dr. Ian Billinghurst. BARF stand for biologically

appropriate raw food or bones and raw food. Every word that I say is true.

 * Several things:

 * 1) Dogs aren't obligate carnivores. They can survive and even thrive on a vegetarian diet, as long as it is properly balanced.
 * 2) Raw meats aren't the greatest things for dogs nowadays, as the meat you buy in a grocery store usually has a fair amount of E. Coli bacteria on its surface or inside of it even (for ground meat), and dogs are just as likely to be sick from it as we are.
 * 3) Pushing any kind of commercial goods is usually not permitted in Wikipedia.--Ramdrake 13:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright dogs may survive on a vegetarian diet but it is not good for them and they will never thrive, even if it is well balanced. Dogs aren't rabbits they are omnivores and do need meat. Dogs are about as likely to catch disease from raw meat as we are to cooked meat. Dogs aren't humans in disguise they NEED raw meat - ok they dont need it but it's virtually essential if you want a healthy dog. Dogs have evolved to be able to easily fight the bacteria off raw meat how do you think wolves survived? If they all died of diseases then there would be no dogs. You're not supposed to buy the raw meat from the grocery anyway, you're supposed to buy it from an animal feeding shop where they serve rabbit, veal, beef, lamb, pork and chicken and before you mention it chicken is perfectly ok for dogs to eat if it's RAW if it's not it will splinter if it's raw it's fine. The biggest thing I can stress is range. Once again every word I say is true. I also wasn't pushing any kind of commercial goods I was really only teling the people who look at this that's where you get the best info I suppose that sounds like commercialising but I didn't mean it that way.

The whole diet section needs to be redone. I take it none of you are actual vets or professional breeders or anything of the kind? There is no evidence showing the veggie diets of dogs. The reason for this is there is none. Meat is a required component of a dogs diet. Also it should be noted someone keeps removing the part under Dangerous substances about Turkey meat. Turkey meat cause acute pancreatic cancer in both dogs and cats. I have personally seen 30 cases this year alone at my clinic of pet deaths from turkey meat and it isn't even the major holidays yet. Irishgt 17:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Shiba picture
Deleted because it must have been posted for vanity. That's an ugly shiba, for one, and the caption "Shibas have a unique appearance that resembles foxes" is stupid. They resemble foxes only if your eyes are covered in vasoline, and the Shiba look is hardly unique. The shiba looks like most other Asian spitzes.
 * Did you notice that it just came back? Deleting that picture may have been seen a vandalism.  I'll admit that it does not look like a fox, yet it is extremely adorable for a dog! B katt 500 02:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Famous Real and Fictional Dogs
If you look at the page that talks about chickens, it has a section for Famous Real and Fictional Chickens. Why wouldn't this have a section for Famous Real and Fictional Dogs?

If it is okay and is allowed to do, will add a section for Famous Real and Fictional Dogs?

 * Lists for both of these already exist -- I created a small section to give background to them and link to them. Does this work? Ben-w 23:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Dog behavior section
I marked it as a stub, but somebody's got to explain how it managed to remain so empty. It doesn't even mention dogs chasing their tail! BioTube 05:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Or attacking people. I note that the dog-loving (i.e. people-hating) cabal have managed to completely whitewash this aspect of dog behaviour from the article. --Q4 21:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

 * There are pretty thorough articles on dog communication, dog society, dog attack, dog aggression, and lots of other topics in Category:Dog training and behavior. I've added a link to that category; "behavior" covers such a wide range that it's going to be hard to summarize all the various aspects. Elf | Talk 02:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Formatting
I'm getting a formatting error with some misplaced edit tags in the Physical Characteristics section. I'm using Firefox 1.5. Anyone else getting that? --Rob W 19:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
Why is there so much intricate science in the introduction? Does the first paragraph actually conform to wikipedia guidelines?

What is recommended for reducing this article to an appropriate size? Rintrah 10:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

 * In skimming through this, I was just thinking that most of what's in the Breeds section would better be moved to existing (but short) article dog breed and then reference that as a main article from here. Elf | Talk 02:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Is this the paragraph you'e referring to?
 * The dog is a mammal in the order Carnivora. Dogs were domesticated from wolves as recently as 15,000 years ago[1], or perhaps as early as 100,000 years ago based upon recent genetic fossil and DNA evidence [2][3]. New evidence suggests that dogs were first domesticated in East Asia, possibly China [4], and the first peoples to enter North America took dogs with them from Asia. Genetic research has identified 14 ancient dog breeds, with the oldest being the Chow Chow, Shar Pei, Akita Inu, Shiba Inu and Basenji. Because many of the 14 breeds are associated with China and Japan, the theory that the dog originated in Asia seems to be likely.[4] Over time, the dog has developed into hundreds of breeds with a great degree of variation. For example, heights at the withers range from just a few inches (such as the Chihuahua) to roughly three feet (such as the Irish Wolfhound), and colors range from white to black, with reds, grays (usually called blue), and browns occurring in a tremendous variation of patterns.

 * I don't see any intricate science, although all the stuff from "as recently as 10,000"... through "seems to be likely" probably belongs in the lower section "Ancestry and history of domestication". (So it might go: "Dogs were domesticated from wolves in prehistory and, over time, the dog has developed...")
 * And I'm not convinced that this text belongs in the intro:
 * This similarity has earned dogs a unique position in the realm of interspecies relationships. The loyalty and devotion that dogs demonstrate as part of their natural instincts as pack animals closely mimics the human idea of love and friendship, leading many dog owners to view their pets as full-fledged family members. Conversely, dogs seem to view their human companions as members of their pack, and make few, if any, distinctions between their owners and fellow dogs.
 * Elf | Talk 02:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, I did mean that parapgraph. I meant intricate hyperbolically, and my question is, why is this technical information included in the introduction? An introduction should be a simple summary of the sections, and not a place for exhibiting scientific questions; or, at least, the language should be simple and graceful, for the reader's benefit, and the scientific language should commence later. I also believe the information in that paragraph is not relevant there and belongs elsewhere. An introduction should gracefully furnish an overview of the subject so the reader may comfortably form the questions in his mind before proceeding, rather than being daunted by technical details. Rintrah 08:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it is necessary to discuss the origin of the dog in the first paragraph. Perhaps there might be too much information, but all the latest research had indicated an east asian origin of the dog.  Since this is accepted by the scientific community, noting that is reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.34.99 (talk)
 * But why should it be in the first paragraph? As already mentioned, there is a "Ancestry and history of domestication" section. The introduction as it stands looks a mess - surely it should be a simple description? -- Ian Dalziel 12:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. If this were a featured article that information would not be in the introduction. Rintrah 14:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Further Review
The peer review contains no information as to how to improve the article to A-class. I think there needs there needs to be another review to identify the necessities for improvement, so editors have a clear conception as to what to do. Some day this article will become listed and remain as a featured article. When it is, I want the picture of my doggie chewing on a bone to be reinserted into the article. 09:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Lawls.
Quite a lot (read: most) of the pictures here are of the "LOOK AT MY DOGLET INT IT KYUTE!!" type. This seems inevitable. Vitriol 01:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Indeed. Perhaps less cute doglets should replace them to emphasise the scientific content of the article. Rintrah 12:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Dog" as metaphor
I didn't expect it to be included within the main Dog article, but I thought that there might be some link to another page/entry/group.

There are many uses for the word 'dog' in English slang - at present I'm trying to find the origin and point of referring to one's feet as 'dogs' especially after walking a long way, when it is said that "one's dogs are barking", meaning the feet ache.

 * We do have a very common dog metaphor: bitch (slang). Rintrah 12:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

 * ) Be Happy!! Love dogs!! :)

 * Ahem. I am sure we can find some way of working this into the article; we have to extract the factual content first. Rintrah 12:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

dogs are hot!
 * To understand more about your condition, you might want to read paraphilia. However, this should not substitute for professional pyschiatric advice. Rintrah 06:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Bias
I would like to add that using Vietnam as an example of where dogs are eaten is highly unfair. This is just bias information with no citation for support. It seems like the author of that segment was trying to isolate Vietnam as the only country where dogs are eaten. Please fix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.254.48.67 (talk • contribs).

 * Here is a reference: . Here is an example of a dog being prepared in Vietnam: . If you think Vietnam is unfairly isolated, you can amend the article to include other countries which practise dog eating. That dogs are eaten in Vietnam is, I think, notable, so the information should remain. Rintrah 16:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I should also point out that that segment specifically notes that dogs are both valued as pets and eaten in Vietnam. This alone makes the information notable—although it should indeed have a citation.  Gordon | Talk, 10 October 2006 @06:25 UTC

 * Ok. Add mine. Rintrah 11:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Done. (That's a [very] good article.)  Gordon | Talk, 10 October 2006 @13:25 UTC

Morgan Wright who are you?
And why don't you read your Talk page? All we wanted was that you supply some sources instead of wriggling past them. Gordon | Talk, 11 October 2006 @10:48 UTC

Apparent ability to perform arithmetic
I read in Brittanica (an old version) dogs can perform simple arithmetic, signalling their answers with a bark. Can anyone confirm this is true? If it be true, I think it is sufficiently notable to be included in this article. Rintrah 13:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Dunno. A bit of grubbing on the net turned up this article on Calculating Dogs. -- Boracay Bill 13:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Yah. But bear in mind that dogs are (all wolf etc ancestry aside) cursorial predators, like humans.  In simple English, they chase their prey down.  You have probably seen docco's of cheetahs and lions ambushing their prey, then having a short but exciting chase, twisting and turning after the, er, victim.  Do they do higher calculus on the run?  I don't think so.  Nor do dogs.  Looking at Boracay Bill's reference, it would seem that a number of otherwise sensible people have got nothing better to do than to anthropomorphise canine behaviour.  Another example: do you -- yes, you! -- do higher calculus when you catch a thrown ball?  No, I didn't think so.  OTOH, I have seen two or three docco's featuring dogs who -- in one instance -- figured out what his human wanted and how to climb a ladder with the tool in his mouth.  He could associate the name of the tool with the actual tool -- it is claimed -- with 100% accuracy.  My dogs still can't associate "W"-"A"-"L"-"K" with "walk" yet.  Go figure.  Gordon | Talk, 21 October 2006 @03:00 UTC

 * My question is not about whether dogs can perform arithmetic abstractly, but whether dogs can remember the number of things — for instance, sheep — while not seeing them, and be able to account for how many there are when they know a certain number have been added or subtracted — as I think the article suggests. I agree, the idea dogs can posit Guass' theorem and operate a cash register is silly antropomorphising. Certain insects, I have heard, are able to fly in patterns which are ideal to mathematicians, even though their behaviour is not based on any real calculation or abstraction. Counting, however, is something babies can do, and it is not difficult to imagine dogs doing it in some sense, though it would be scientifically notable. Rintrah 06:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I've seen the odd "current affairs" report that yay dog can count/add/subtract, but it always looked a bit suss, with clever camera angles. In at least a couple of cases, it was obvious that the human was, ummmm, "coaching" the mutt...  But I reckon there are always a few who do (like humans I guess) show extraordinary abilities.  Gordon | Talk, 21 October 2006 @10:04 UTC

 * Go mutt! I think I know what you mean by "current affairs". The experts too are often... "coached" — sometimes with money. At least I am sure that some mutts are extraordinary — I salute you Muttnik! Oh well. Maybe the Brittanica article meant something; maybe it didn't. Rintrah 11:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Clever Hans User:Pedant 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then again, ootch' ko a' pin a' koh -- ("oootch the pooch") could tell direction, like go north, stop, go west, go south go north... etc. Probably she got some cue from me but not intentionally. User:Pedant 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dog "category" behaviours?
The paragraph on livestock dogs (ie: pastoral in the UK, herding in US/Canada) isn't accurate. The most juvenile characteristics of round body and dropped ears? I think this is specific to certain breeds rather than a category. After all, this would include collies, corgis, and German shepherds. CMacMillan 14:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Further to this... I've edited the paragraph on "Livestock Guardian Dogs". The physical description was incorrect, and the concept of livestock (herding, guarding) dogs viewing their charges as a surrogate litter is patently wrong. Surrogate, unapproachable food is more like it. CMacMillan 15:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How do dogs taste

 * With their tongues. Duh. Gzuckier 15:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Should we add this to the article? Rintrah 16:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Does the cow article describe the taste of beef? CMacMillan 16:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

 * A dog has no taste buds. Their sense of smell works in that way Irishgt 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * on that. Cites disputing that:     -- Boracay Bill 18:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The only problem with that is there are almost as many nerves in a dogs tounge as there is in there teeth, next to none compared to their nose. It is argued that their nose overides their 1700 taste receptors, since they don't have 9000 that we have. So the info about taste is pure speculation and has almost never held up in the Veterinary world. Irishgt 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to edit this page
Why is it not possible to edit this page? Normally there's a little box that says a page has been blocked from anonymous editing when this happens, but not with dog.

 * It just randomly targets vandals. CMacMillan 16:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Photograph Captions

 * The following photo has been in the article for a few months.Somebody added the "citation needed" recently. Since that's a picture of my dog, what evidence do I have to provide to verify the caption? Also, am I supposed to be verifying the age of the dog, his breed or the fact that he is enjoying the sunlight?! Ackatsis 01:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the person who added this was objecting to the term 'enjoying'. Rather than change the caption, they placed 'fact' templates.   I see the point, they aren't very enclopedic.   If we wanted to be pedantic - we can't know that the dog is 'enjoying' these actions, maybe the dog is finding the sunlight really annoying, but is simply tired and doesn't want to move to a more shady spot - we can't ask so we can't know.    I've changed the captions so that they are more apropriate.  - Trysha (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I see your point, and you're probably right. I took that photograph at Hanging Rock, Victoria on a hot summer day, and we forgot to bring any water. He probably is cursing the sunlight in that photo! Ackatsis 10:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh Come ON!! Leave off the ^$^*$%* Political Correctness!  Why on earth do we care whether the animals were or weren't enjoying anything at all?  Is it that important?  If all we want to do is avoid upsetting weak-minded herbs with the life-quality of a lichen then something is seriously amiss here.  Let the mutts enjoy -- certainly both the Malteser and the Staffy look happy enough!  Gordon | Talk, 3 November 2006 @15:04 UTC

 * This really annoys me. How is saying whether an animal enjoys something or not political? It has nothing to do with politics. Reforming language to remove all references to an animals' enjoyment aids no political programme — though it would make it sillier. Leave politics to politics. But yes, I agree, the dog probably is enjoying himself, and I would say so too. Rintrah 04:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

 * If it helps anybody's argument, the dog was thirsty and probably quite exhausted when that photo was taken... On the other hand, Lasca (the staffy) always seemed to be enjoying himself, particularly when we went walking through an unfamiliar forest with its many exciting sights and smells. (Unfortunately, Lasca passed away about two months ago, age 12) Ackatsis 05:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * RIP Lasca. Rintrah 06:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks. He was a great dog! We've since got a new one- a Staffy crossed with a Rhodesian Ridgeback, but I'd forgotten how much of a nuisance puppies can be! (see photo on left- I uploaded it just so you could see her. Her name is Cassie!) Ackatsis 07:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * She is so cute! Rintrah 08:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't let the innocent-looking puppy face fool you. She's got quite a powerful bite on her, and she doesn't mind nipping at your feet (and chewing any piece of footwear that you leave lying around)! Ackatsis 08:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

 * My condolences. It's always rough.  And congratulations -- Cassie looks very confident.  Is she an "innie" or "outie"?  Gordon | Talk, 3 November 2006 @14:14 UTC
 * I'm not sure I'm following you on that question, Gordon... Is it referring to whether or not we keep her inside? Just like we di with Lasca, we keep her outside. However, if it's a cold night, we let her in to sit by the fire. Also, I think she just enjoys being around the family. Dogs are great! Far superior to cats, of course... Ackatsis 15:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Yah, you got it. Ours are innies -- fur-kids really.  But then I can't remember any of my family's mutts being outies, they've always been full (well, like small children there are things they can't be allowed to do...) members of the family.  And it does develop their territoriality!  Not that they are aggressive, but they get protective, even Fluffy the Maltese X!  Gordon | Talk, 3 November 2006 @16:29 UTC

 * sure dogs enjoy stuff! it's ignorant to say otherwise, but captions should be meaningful with regard to the text within the article, or omitted.

The x enjoys sunlight captions aren't really useful, they might as well say "This dog likes having it's picture taken, and prefers to be photographed from the left, as he feels that is his 'good' side. Better to omit the caption.  Or simply state the breed and age.   Lot's of people will object to a caption showing 'state of mind' of an animal unless it is evident from the photo such as 'this cat seems intent on stalking its prey, apparently a gust of wind' ... Text that describes the picture is useful for blind users of wikipedia 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Sure this can be political.  There are many people out there who would argue that animals do not have emotions or think, that they simply act upon instinct alone.     I have met some of those folks, I have even seen the view presented on national television, there was once an episode of Kate & Allie where one of the lead characters chastized the other for educating her children that a cat could think.    It has been the topic of articles in the |news as well as debated by scientists.     My opinion?   Of course animals enjoy things,  of course they think!   Should it be the caption of an image?    I don't think so, as it doesn't seem encyclopaedic to me.    It would be better to have the caption be more descriptive of the dog itself.   - Trysha (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (I feel like I have come here to ruin everyone's fun)

 * To whoever altered the caption to the second photograph: you gave me a good laugh. I'm sure that if I asked Cassie honestly, she'd admit to how fascinated she is by Gödel's incompleteness theorems. After all, she is about three months old now - it's about time she took an interest in such things! Ackatsis 09:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Euthanasia
While it is possible to kill animals for their own good, the range of cases in which this possible is limited and does not include the more common kind of case in which domesticated animals are said to be euthanized. For the most common case involves killing healthy animals - strays and unwanted pets. Since the condition of these animals differs importantly from the condition of those whose euthanasia is preference-respecting, we need to ask how we should understand the practice of euthanizing healthy but unwanted animals.

As is true of euthanasia generally, paternalistic euthanasia - when we impose our will and our judgment on the animal for the animal's own good - requires more than that death be casued by the least painful means, more than that one's motive be appropriately other-regarding, and more than one believe that death is in the interests of those who are killed. That belief must be true. Virtually all cases where healthy, unwanted pet animals are said to be euthanized fail to qualify as euthanasia. Becahse these animals are healthy, killing them can only erroneously be classified as preference-respecting.

The question at issue is not which policy is morally preferable - the one where healthy animals are, or the one where they are not, routinely killed, if they have not been adopted in a given length of time. The question is conceptual. It is whether animals are euthanized when shelters rely on the practice of killing animals if they have not been adopted after a given length of time. The answer must be, no. This does not entail that putting animals to sleep must be wrong. It is simply to remove a piece of the rhetoric standing in the way of commanding a clear view of the ehtics of this practice. The animals are being killed, not euthanized.

 * If you're looking for a philosophical discussion, this isn't the place, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. CMacMillan 14:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

i think perhaps it is possable to be overdoing it? Blue Vortex 19:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the entire Overpopulation section of this article is both US-centric and POV. -- Boracay Bill 22:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

wolf subspecies?
i realize that there is considerable genetic (as well as morphological and behavioral) evidence to place dogs as direct descendants of mid-eastern wolves; but does this mean that they are necessarily the same species? dogs, even in the wilderness, are more likely to be eaten by wolves than to breed with them; they're, in fact, more likely to cross with the coyote, a slightly more distant relative. even polar bears are, genetically speaking, nearer to some brown bear (Ursus arctos) lineages than others (though more or less similarly divergent to each when it comes down to morphology and behavior). has anyone else here thought along any of these lines? maybe i'm just more a "splitter" than a "lumper"!---Metanoid 03:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So far as I know, a species is defined as being a group of individuals who share enough characteristics that their offspring can themselves produce further offspring. As almost all cases of wolf-dog crossing I have ever heard of produce potentially or factually fertile offspring, they would seem to qualify as being of the same species according to that definition. This is not to say that they necessarily like each other, as many other members of the same or very closely related species fight too, just that they qualify as being the same species according to the primary definition of which I am aware. Badbilltucker 15:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * as a student of biology, i can tell you that not only can dogs produce viable young with wolves, but with coyotes too, and many species of jackals. polar bear/brown bear hybrids are very healthy and backcross fine. tigers and lions often produce fertile offspring. white bass and white perch. mallards and most other dabbling ducks. steller's jays and blue jays. even baboons and macaques (monkeys). i just don't think that a simple viability of hybrids should be the only parameter. i can provide sources, of course, if anyone is interested; but i think that to be legit this article should be slightly less evolutionarily naive (imho).---Metanoid 19:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dead link
The link to the Reuters article about artificial sweetners is dead.--Filll 06:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Docga" and Mastiffs
There is no evidence to link the OE "docga" with the mastiff. No English literature makes the connection. Further, the following web refs show clearly that even in modern usage the two words are unrelated.

 * mastiff
 * "large, powerful breed of dog," c.1330, from O.Fr. mastin or Prov. mastis, both from V.L. * mansuetinus "domesticated," from L. mansuetus "tame, gentle" (see mansuetude). Form infl. by O.Fr. mestif "mongrel."
 * Online Etymology

 * dog
 * O.E. docga, a late, rare word used of a powerful breed of canine. It forced out O.E. hund (the general Gmc. and IE word; see canine) by 16c. and subsequently was picked up in many continental languages (cf. Fr. dogue, Dan. dogge), but the origin remains one of the great mysteries of English etymology.
 * Online Etymology

 * dogged
 * This clearly comes from the verbal form of 'dog', which means to follow or hunt like a dog. The origin of 'dog' is one that seems to mystify even the most dogged of etymologists. Dog seems to be another one of our pure Anglo Saxon words - docga. 'Canine' and 'hound' can be traced but 'dog' just appeared. It is also interesting that cognates of 'dog' appear later in French, dogue, and German, dogge, for certain types of dogs such as the mastiff. However, these words come from the English 'dog.'
 * The Toad's Words

In general, Dogue (fr) and Dog (du) --> mastiff (eng), but Dogo (sp) --> bulldog (eng). Gordon | Talk, 12:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Origins
in the scientific show NOVA, it said that dogs most likely originated in India. however, when i listed this, it was deleted, but why?Crawfordknights 00:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Because you made a claim, then removed a reference, and then did not cite any evidence to substantiate your theory. It would have helped if you had cited the NOVA article (assuming a written transcript is available) as evidence that someone other than you had thought of it.  Even just mentioning NOVA would have been a good start.  As Ohnoitsjamie pointed out, the existence of stray dogs now does not support any theory of evolution or origins then.  Gordon | Talk, 12:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That serial comma.
Moved to Talk:Serial comma. Gordon | Talk, 10:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Older or Newer?
Look at this text:

New evidence suggests that dogs were first domesticated in East Asia, possibly China,[5] ... Because many of the 14 breeds are associated with China and Japan, the theory that the dog originated in Asia seems to be likely.[5]

Does this mean to say that those ancinet breeds have been domestic the longest? Wouldn't the opposite be true? That gentically wolf-like breeds have changed less from wolves, by definition, and thus were brought out of wolf conditions most recently? And that the genetically most altered breed have been mutating the longest, and thus entered domestic conditions earlier?

The end note expalining this links to a members only site. Does anyone know the answer to this, or other evidence?

Sukkoth 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dog/Archive 2