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
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
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. 
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)
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.
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 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)
Copyright: Wikipedia information about Talk:Dog – This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Talk:Dog". More from Wikipedia