Talk:Bernese Mountain Dog

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SoldBuyChristina.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ShawnBoom.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Bitches

I know it's being used in its original sense and isn't being used in a derogatory manner, but I still think there's no need to use the word bitches when male and female would work just fine. Wikipedia should be as safe and welcoming a space as possible without compromising it's integrity. Here, using the word bitches provides no benefit to Wikipedia but serves to potentially distance and offend some viewers. Science Is My Life (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Reliability.

@7&6=thirteen I'm not sure why you're linking WP:RS to justify restoring self-published information. The only data on that site that isn't a kennel club survey is more than three decades outdated. Furthermore the paragraph itself synthesises and uses data from the Pullman site and compares it to a completely different study with different methodology. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

NBC and the veterinaryd journal are not self published. WP:Not paper. These sources can coexist. Which is what I did. And you did the contrary, removing the other sources.

The studies you rely upon are limited, specialized and narrow. I don't know why you think that they should occupy the field. I would say that I have experience with the breed, and the prevalence of malignant hystiocytosis is a real problem that affects their longevity

I love the breed, but folks should get the full picture. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The NBC link is dead without an archive. The Research in Veterinary Science journal study is being used as synthesis/original research and isn't about the breed.

The study has a sample size of 449, is more recent, and relies on multiple data sources. The Pullman data is at least two decades outdated and relies on survey data solely.

Not paper has to do with topics, not whether we should include every single study under the sun in an article; what information is more useful to the reader, data that is outdated by more than two decades, or more recent data?

>The studies you rely upon are limited, specialized and narrow.

I'm not sure how they can be more specialised and narrow than studies that relies on self-reported data from kennel club breeders exclusively.

I'm not sure why you're mentioning histiocytosis, I didn't touch that information and in fact added information onto it. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Linkrot does not make the source unreliable.

There are other sources.

I mentioned hystiocyosis because it is common in the breed (the Bernese Mountain Dog Club of America did a study on it), and it is one of the main levers in bringing down their lifespan. But there are other causes, too.

It's not about reliability. WP:Verifiability, not WP:Truth. In any event, let the readers sort through the sources if they choose, and make their best decision. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It means it cannot be verified. Information changes and better studies come out with more recent data, when the prior studies provide no benefit over the new one there is no reason to keep a reference to them.

>It's not about reliability

It does when it comes to giving weight to studies.

>I mentioned hystiocyosis because it is common in the breed (the Bernese Mountain Dog Club of America did a study on it), and it is one of the main levers in bringing down their lifespan. But there are other causes, too.

It is quite common in the breed compared to other breeds, but I don't see what this has to do with the life expectancy paragraph. It's mentioned elsewhere.

The Swiss study is not the one that was cited and I don't have issue with it but WebMD and Canine Weekly are not good sources for veterinary related claims, the WebMD article itself has glaring errors which show there is no real editing going on. Canine Weekly wouldn't even be considered a reliable source in general to me.

>In any event, let the readers sort through the sources if they choose

If the studies all had similar levels of merit or represented something unique eg.: a different country, then that would be fine - but they don't. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

You're still using a self-published site and synthesis from it . Traumnovelle (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You are WP:Edit warring. Stop it. If there is consensus then we can change it. But you are putting oin your blinders and apparently can't see thew bigger picture. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

You weren't replying and the content is still self-published and synthesis. I don't need consensus to overrule one editor trying to include content that goes against policy and guidelines. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I replied with another three other sources. Your nattering about "self published" doesn't change the facts, which exist — whether you like it or not. Give it a rest. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can think generic dog guide books and the American Kennel Club are of equal reliability as peer reviewed studies. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you ignore the studies you don't like. So we have a shared scepticism.

To be sure, results vary. Maybe different populations, genetics, environments. Who knows? But breeders and dog fanciers know when their animals cross the Rainbow bridge, regretful as that may be. Giving the readers the pull panoply of sources (which generally share rough outcomes anyway) is a trustworthy result. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

When did I ignore a study? The kennel club surveys have low sample sizes, are more than two decades outdated, and aren't a fully representative population sample.

>But breeders and dog fanciers know when their animals cross the Rainbow bridge

They also have no independent oversight in their claims and have a bias.

>Giving the readers the pull panoply of sources (which generally share rough outcomes anyway) is a trustworthy result.

Treating anecdotal evidence from non-reliable sources as equal to peer reviewed and published data is not giving the reader the best information for an encyclopaedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This one would qualify:

• A 2020 United States study offered a general conclusion with emphasis on "mountain dogs":

As previously reported, body size was negatively correlated with lifespan. Gonadectomy was associated with a longer lifespan, with the effect being stronger in females than in males. This lifespan advantage was conserved in gonadectomized female dogs that lived to at least ages 5 and 8 years. We did not find significant differences in lifespan between purebred and mixed breed dogs; however, breeds with larger effective population sizes and/or lower inbreeding coefficients had median survival times 3–6 months longer than breeds with smaller effective population sizes or higher inbreeding coefficients, indicating that these measures of genetic diversity may be affecting breed lifespans. We also found that dog breeds belonging to the “Mountain” ancestral group had median survival times that were 3.5–4.6 years shorter than other purebred dog groups, which remained significant even when correcting for body size.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Being unaware of a study is not ignoring it. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Please take a look at [1] Traumnovelle (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It was in the Wikipedia article. Selective perception, missed edits or lack of situational awareness, I guess. Mistakes happen. WP:AGF. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You added it well after than the other results, I was referring to you adding self-published and unreliable sources - the study is obviously fine and not what I was referring to. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)