Talk:Shiloh Shepherd dog/Archive 4
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
Dispute(s)
(*Note to NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, AND ISSDC contributors: Please advise if you concur or disagree with my summaries below):
From everything I have read, it would appear, as evidenced throughout this talk page AND the article edit page, contributors representing the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC registries/clubs, have agreed/compromised/concurred regarding the following:
1)They have agreed/compromised to the inclusion of ALL currently established registries/clubs affiliated with the Shiloh Shepherd dog, including the ISSR/SSDCA as an acknowledged Shiloh Shepherd registry/club in the article.
2)They have agreed/compromised that the article contain an acknowledgement that Ms. Barber initiated this breed and originated the standard for the breed.
3)They concur that the article content must contain "verifiable" documentation, not based on "original" research and stated only from a "neutral point of view", in agreement with Wikipedia's stated requirements for content criteria. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria)
4)They have agreed/compromised, in order to resolve this dispute and prevent potential for unverifiable, dependent, biased inclusions/comparisons/contrasts by any registry/club, including their own, to refrain from including any registry/club specific information and promotion in the article, other than to cite the existence and names of each, and to simply include ALL registry's/club's homepage website links at the bottom of the article, which will allow Wikipedia readers the opportunity to gain access, should they choose, to each of the various registries'/clubs' individual purported documentation, research, and points of view.
5)They concur that the article should NOT contain original publication of "original thought", "propaganda", "advocacy", "self-promotion", and "advertising", in agreement with Wikipedia's stated requirements for "Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is Not" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_machine).
6)They have agreed/compromised, in order to resolve this dispute and prevent inclusion of these disallowed contents by any registry/club, including their own, to refrain from including any registry/club specific information and promotion in the article, other than to cite the existence and names of each, and to simply include ALL registry's/club's homepage website links at the bottom of the article, which will allow Wikipedia readers the opportunity to gain access, should they choose, to each of the various registries'/clubs' individual thoughts, propaganda, advocacy, self-promotion, and advertising.
7)In order to resolve this dispute and prevent bias regarding the article's descriptive contents concerning "Health", they have agreed/compromised to refrain from including any statements citing, reviewing, or comparing/contrasting ISSR, NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, SSDCA, or ISSDC health practices/policies and they propose the "Health" section of the article contain only a statement listing those health issues acknowledged by ALL registries/clubs (gastrointestinal problems -gastric torsion/bloat, bacterial overgrowth syndrome- and skeletal or bone disorders such as hip dysplasia, panosteitis and osteochondritis), a recommendation by ALL registries/clubs that testing be conducted and a statement that "these reports clearly show that, as giant breeds go, the Shiloh is arguably a healthy example".
8)They have agreed/compromised that regarding "Size", "Coat", "Color", and "Temperament", there appears to be very limited dispute re: the "standards" contained therein and that the section should remain free of any statements citing, reviewing, promoting any individual registry/club and comparing/contrasting one registry/club with another.
These compromises and requested article inclusions/exclusions meet Wikipedia's policies/procedures for content criteria, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria) in that they embrace the following:
1) Neutral(WP:NPOV)in that the article would be "representing all views fairly and without bias" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). In FACT, there are no requests from the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC registries/clubs for the inclusion of any comparisons/contrasts (negative or otherwise) between any of the registries/clubs, including the ISSR/SSDCA, nor have they requested that any clubs other than their own, be exluded from inclusion in the article. In FACT, there has only been the request that ALL registries/clubs affiliated with the Shiloh Shepherd dog be simply noted, with appropriate website links included at the bottom of the article. This is as "neutral" as an article contribution can get, according to any standards.
2)No Original Research(WP:PNOR). In FACT, there are no requests from any of the registries/clubs of the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC for Wikipedia's acknowledgement or inclusion of any "original research", whether it be their own or that of the ISSR/SSDCA. Again, they are simply asking that the the existence of ALL registries affiliated with the Shiloh Shepherd dog be noted, with appropriate website links included at the bottom of the article.
3)Verifiability (WP:V) In FACT, there are no legal governing bodies that allow/prevent the establishment of a dog registry or club. And yes, anyone can legally establish a dog registry/club, as evidenced by the establishment of all of those involved with the Shiloh Shepherd dog (ISSR, NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, ISSDC AND SSDCA). Simply put, they EXIST and they do so legally, as allowed by established U.S. law. Now, there are national/international organizations in place (AKC, UKC, FCI etc...), some of whom are registries and/or clubs in and of themselves, that have chosen to "acknowledge" some other registries/clubs. Because of their renown, an endorsement from another well-know, considerd reputable organizations tends to add positively to the reputation of that more newly established registry/club.
Nevertheless, NONE of these recognized independent bodies have the legal power or authority to secure or prevent the establishment or existence of these registries/clubs.
Most importantly, for purposes of discussion here, NONE have decided to to "acknowledge" or "endorse" any one of the Shiloh Shepherd existing registries/clubs (ISSR, NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, ISSDC or SSDCA) over any of the others at this time. So, its a moot point...even if they could or do...they haven't!
Consequently, in the absence of an independent, verifiable organization's "seal of approval", the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC has agreed to acknowledge the existence of all of these registries/clubs (including an agreement/compromise that the ISSR/SSDCA be mentioned in the article as the "first" established chronologically), but not a "rating system", whereby any one registry/club proclaims its self to be exclusive, superior, approved, or official over any other registry/club.
Jareth, to accomplish your request that everyone demonstrate good faith, and since resolution requires either a willingness to negotiate on the parts of all parties involved or a stalemate, I think we would all appreciate if the contributors representing the ISSR/SSDCA would now affirm whether or not they are willing to negotiate with the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC contributors and are willing to offer any compromises or agreements in order to reach consensus. We sure would appreciate if you would ask them to respond, because without that commitment, this debate really has no where to go at this point, other than to a "judge" who can review the merits of each sides' views and make a determination as to how this article is going to finally appear. Thank you. M. Dùfy
Straw Poll
Please review the proposal Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog#Dispute(s). I'd like to take a quick survey of the people involved in the page since no direct comments on the proposal have been received. Please sign your name using three tildes (~~~) under the position you support, possibly adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion".
Support all points
- Support all points 66.188.54.68Suzy Graham, Tantara Shiloh Shepherds66.188.54.68
69.173.135.114Miles D.
Support All Points, JudyShilohshepherd
NobleAcres Gloria
Support all points ShenandoahShilohs 13:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Support all Points. Wendy Fullerton Windsong Kennels/Raid the Wind Kennels. I have been involved with Shiloh Shepherds from the beginning plus two years previous while they were still registered as German Shepherds. WindsongKennels 16:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Support all Points. Diane K. McClure, Raid the Wind Kennels. Raid the Wind Kennels 17:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Support all Points. Becky Althoff Gateway/Catoctin Shiloh Shepherds since 1996. Iamgateway
Support all Points. Gwyllgi 00:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Support all points. See comments below. Elf | Talk 02:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Elf: May I ask if you are one of the people affiliated with the "WikiProject Dog breeds" that Jareth has requested as an outside, unaffiliated (w/Shiloh Shepherds) observer to comment on this discussion? 69.173.135.114 08:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Miles
Support all Points. PJBJ
Support all points. I concur with Elf below - Trysha (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Trysha: May I ask if you are also one of the people that Jareth has requested as an outside, unaffiliated (w/Shiloh Shepherds) observer to comment on this discussion? 69.173.135.114 08:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Miles
Suppport all points. Trevor.sawler 14:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Support all points. ShilohSupporter 22:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Support all points. V&G12.41.65.74
Strongly Support all points. Dullpine
Support All Points and for listing the registries Jareth suggested. 205.188.116.136
Support some, but not all points
I believe the "other" clubs/registeries should have the real reasons for their formation and/or split from the ISSR listed. It is my opinion that the public has a right to know why they are not willing to follow the original plan in developing the Shiloh Shepherd. Tony Matzke 04:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe using the GSD or other dog breed articles as an example is a good idea. michelle johnson66.21.156.244
I researched other Shiloh registries before obtaining dogs from Tina Barber. She is the breed founder and developer. I agree the other registries should publish the reason for the split from Ms. Barber and explain the need for additional resgistry/splinter formation. D. Harden
I support that Tina Barber is the breed founder of the Shiloh Shepherd, that the Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America is and was the first national breed club, that the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry was formed in 1991 and has been registering Shiloh Shepherds ever since. An alternate club, the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club, was formed in 1997, that club started its own registry in 1998. Both organizations disbanded in 2001. Due to internal disagreements, the breeders associated with the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club and registry started various other registries, the NSBR (2001), the TSSR (2002) and the SSBA thereafter. In 2004, a second organization, using the name International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club, was started. Trillhill 02:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Reject all points
The ISSR is the only true Shiloh Shepherd registry. Susan Olson
I'm not quite sure just how we're suppose to vote here, so I will say it again. The ISSR is the ONLY organization that can hand out valid Shiloh Shepherd papers. If your getting your papers from anywhere else the dog could be anything else. I reject these and any other registry other than ISSR. 67.186.153.43 11:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Katy Schuele
AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE. I MUST REJECT ALL POINTS. 67.141.45.154 19:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)WILLIE LASS
I have stated MY points many times over!! Please review my posts [[User:Tina M. Barber|Tina M. Barber]
I have been reading the multitude of various statements made very carefully and feel it unnessary for me to rehash the various points so I now simply wish to add my agreement with all of Tina Barber's points in this matter. As Tina Barber is unquestionably the original and only founder of the true Shiloh Shepherd, I feel that her obvious knowledge and sincere concern for the specific standards and manner in continuing developement of the Shiloh Shepherd as a breed should be respected.
Nancy Tisci, TiAmo Desert Mountain Shilohs in AZ.
Ditto, Ms.Tisci. Michelle Johnson66.21.156.244
I must vote to reject all points. The most telling item in all of this has been from Jareth, representing Wikipedia, when he stated: "As you can see -- we are not here in a quest for truth."
Those who are considering a Shiloh Shepherd, PLEASE stick with the ORIGINAL, GENUINE registry (the ISSR) and deal only with those breeders who still honor and respect the Breed Founder.
Stu Tarlowe Life Member, SSDCA Stu Tarlowe 20:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I strongly urge anyone interested in the Shiloh Shepherd breed to consider that Tina Barber is the breed founder and is still in the process of developing said breed. So long as the stud books are open...no one but the creator of the breed has the knowledge or the justification to NOT follow the guidelines she has established. To do otherwise is to mongralize the breed. 64.12.116.132Ginger
Discussion
---Per your question below (Jareth asked: Also, are't the registries currently listed only registering Shilo Shepherds, or am I reading incorrectly?), you are correct and I propose that ONLY these registries/clubs limited to the registration of Shiloh Shepherds be included, that is NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, ISSDC, ISSR, and SSDCA. 69.173.135.114Miles D.
I think that EACH registry willing to issue papers for the Shiloh Shepherd should be included!! Tina M. Barber
I believe the article is about Shiloh Shepherds, thus the listing of the Shiloh specific registries who's sole function is the Shiloh Shepherd Breed. I have no issue with listing the ISSR as the first of these registries. 152.163.100.132 14:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)ShenandoahShilohs 14:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The Shiloh Shepherd registries include the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA and the ISSR. All these registries share the same Shiloh Shepherd ancestry as developed by Tina Barber. The NSBR, TSSR and SSBA were developed by former ISSR breeders which chose to leave the ISSR organization, primarily not because they want to breed away from the Shiloh Shepherd Breed Standard, but because they could not longer work with the ISSR's leader. Many of the dogs registered currently with the non-ISSR registries were once fully recognized and registered Original ISSR Shiloh Shepherds. It was only after their owners departed the ISSR organization that these same dogs were declared non-Shilohs and not worthy of the name "Shiloh Shepherd". To take it even one step further, there have been littermates declared as either an Original ISSR Shiloh Shepherd (as this owner was part of the ISSR organization) or a non-Shiloh mutt (as this owner declined to be part of her organization).
Therefore, it is only fair that all the Shiloh Shepherd registries be listed as part of this article. For the purposes of this article, I feel this list should concentrate primarily on the registries which focus on this breed and not every dog registry in the world that will accept the breed. I'm sorry, I forgot to hit the sign code for the previous post Dartagnan
THANKS TO THE WIKI, I AM WORKING ON ANOTHER *BIG* WEB ARTICLE, SOME OF THIS WILL ALSO BE PUBLISHED IN A MAG!! I THINK THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW THE TRUTH!! PLEASE LOOK AT http://www.shilohshepherds.info/originalISSRrules.htm If you read this & the ISSR rules carefully, dogs that do NOT meet the specific requirements set by the ISSR cannot get BREEDING PAPERS ... PERIOD!! Dogs that are AKC GSD's cannot get ISSR papers making them *INSTANT* Shiloh Shepherds ... DOGS RESCUED FROM SHELTERS CANNOT BECOME "SHILOHS" AND BE BRED!! Get it?? That's why the ISSR rules are so hard to follow .. but without them .. all you have is a GSD MIX!! PERIOD!! Tina M. Barber 17:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Could we calm down please? What on earth does this have to do with the registries? I'm especially curious since a number of them you recently provided for inclusion offer papers to any dog as long as a veterinarian states their breed. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, atleast they ask a vet for proof .. what proof do the "other" registries use? I don't have time to play games here .. but from what they say on their OWN websites ... ANY DOG FROM THE *SHEPHERD* FAMILY CAN GET PAPERS .... FOR A PRICE THAT IS!!! You call this a "breed" "registry"??? Tina M. Barber 15:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
FROM WIKIPEDIAS POINT THEY MUST TRY TO ALLOW THE MOST ACCURATE INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE, IN THEIR ARTICLES. RIGHTLY SO. THE PUBLIC COMES TO THEM FOR HONEST ACCURATE INFORMATION. WHERE WE THEN CAN PONDER AND MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES. A) ONLY THE ISSR SHOULD BE LISTED. WHY? THEY HAVE THE 1) HISTORY 2) DOCUMENTATION ON RECORD WITH THE TCCP IN TEXAS 3) ACCURATE DATA ON THOUSANDS OF SHILOH SHEPHERDS. INCLUDING GSDS WHOM WERE USED IN THE FOUNDATION OF BUILDING THE SHILOH SGEPHERD 4) ONGOING GENETIC HEALTH SURVEYS GOING BACK MANY MANY YEARS B)IF YOU ALLOW ANY OTHER REGISTRIES TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED, THEN WIKIPEDIA IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE FRAUDULENT DECEPTION OF THE PUBLIC. IS THE DOG BEING REGISTERED SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN WITH THE ISSR, A REAL SHILOH SHEPHERD? OR A GSD MIX? YOU CANNOT BE SURE WITHOUT ACCURATE DATA OVER TIME. PLEASE CONSIDER THIS WIKIPEDIA, IN RESEARCH, EXACT ACCURACY CANNOT ALWAYS BE ATTAINED. WHAT DOES THE MEDICAL FIELD DO AS AN EXAMPLE? RESEARCH DATA OVER TIME. ASTUTE RECORD KEEPING. ONLY THE ISSR HAS THAT. C)IF BY SOME MISTAKE THE WIKIPEDIA ALLOWS OTHER REGISTRIES TO BE LISTED IN THEIR ARTICLE, THEY MIGHT AS WELL LIST THEM ALL.
67.141.45.154 19:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)WILLIE LASS
Behind all of the posts, there are really two main issues. The first, is the Shiloh Shepherd a Breed of dog? I think it has clearly been proven that with every Rare Breed Show organization accepting them as a Breed, as well as all health organizations, all National Canine Magazines, and the general public, that issue should not even be an issue.
Second issue; Is the ISSR the only registry? Obviously that is not the case. Since 1991 Barber sold these dogs to the general public as a Breed of dog. They were advertized by her as well as many other breeders through the years as a Breed of Dog. The Shilohs were deemed public domain as a Breed of Dog by the US Patent and Trade Mark office. As a Bred of dog, the general public has the legal right to do what they want with them. Once Barber stopped selling the dogs as Shiloh kennles German Shepherds and called them a new Breed, she no longer had the legal right to mandate what others did with the Shiloh Shepherds that they purchased.
Through the years for what ever reasons, other Shiloh Shepherd specific Registries were formed and are operating, period. Since 1997 the ISSR is not the only Shiloh Shepherd Registry.
If Barber had continued to sell a line of German Shepherds from her kennel then maybe there would be an arguement. Since this is not what she did, and choose to seek Breed status, and thus named them Shiloh Shepherd, all of the rest is a moot point.
We could go all day on what registry has the most dogs, or who is better, but that has no berring on this article.
This dispute has been going on for years, and I am sure will continue, and will never be resolved as to some it is personal. This article is to be about the dogs, it is not to glorify any one person or registry. Each has there own links and with those links the general public can be educated and make thier own determination as to what they want.
The dog-breeds project has dealt often with newer & minor breeds in contention, and we have consistently arrived at the conclusion that, to present information in an NPOV manner, articles must address the fact that there is contention but in as simple a way as possible--e.g., "ISSD claims to be the only legitimate registry for SSDs, but other registries dispute this." (Or whatever the summary is.) It's a fact, hence it's not debatable. I think your proposed list addresses this, but I felt it was worth stating again. Elf | Talk 02:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
CORRECTION!!! The ISSR (not issd) IS the ONLY RECOGNIZED registry, as per ARBA http://www.arba.org/ShilohShepherd1BS.htm NPOV The "others" only exist in their *own* minds, and on their *own* websites .. now THAT should be looked upon as THEIR POV!!! PERIOD! Tina M. Barber 15:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
What does showing dogs in the ARBA with the standard created by your registry have to do with whether or not the other registries exist? Are we to assume that ARBA also issues registrations for Shilohs? There is an overwhelming consensus to include the other registries in this article. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I firmly believe, that in order to protect the Shiloh Shepherd breed (breed under development), there needs to be only one registry and that one registry needs to be the original registry founded by Tina Barber - the ISSR. Are there a multitude of German Shepherd registries in the United States where if I don't like one registry I can jump ship and join a different one? That would seem crazy to me. Did Max Von Stephenitz (sp?) have a multitude of registries when he was developing the German Shepherd? Not any that I'm aware of and being that he was in Germany and ready about how strict they were and still are over there regarding dog breeding I don't think think anything like what's going on over here with the Shiloh registries would even have been able to be a thought over there. Tina Barber is the founder and the visionary and everyone needs to either be with her and a part of the original registry or not be with her and hang their hat up and walk away. I can understand why a breeders registry rights are taken away if the breeder choses to not breed according to every rule in the ISSR rule book. The rules are put there to protect the breed. I am against there being a multitude of registries and think there should be only one - for the sake of the breed. If the other registries want to continue existing then they need to start there own breeds and call their dogs by a different name. Again, I think there should be only one registry and it should be the ISSR.
Article content
Personally I think the article is good as written now.
I have reviewed the article content per Sandra's suggestiosn below:
The Shiloh Shepherd was developed by breed founder Tina Barber of Shiloh Shepherds Kennel in New York state in a sustained effort over the last third of the 20th century. Her goal was to preserve the type of German Shepherd she remembered as a child in Germany. Those dogs were big, mentally sound, and beautiful. In 1990, Barber separated her dogs from the AKC and in 1991 created the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) (based on Von Stephanitz's SV) as the official governing body for the breed.
As the breed gained recognition and popularity near the turn of the millenium, new registries and clubs began to form, each having their own vision for the future of the breed.
I don't agree with this article as written as I still feel it is trying to diminish the other club and registries and making the Shiloh Shepherd just seem as if they are just GSD's from Shiloh kennels.
The ISSR may be Barber's "official governing body, but as proven for weeks now, it is not the sole Shiloh Shepherd registry. Also, while mentioning that Barber seperated "her" Shiloh Kennels GSD from the AKC, the article fails to mention in doing so a new Rare Breed was accepted and recognized. Further, this New Breed was not just formed due to Barber seperating her GSD's from AKC, there was the addition of other breeds that are not GSD's , thus they no longer could be registered with the AKC as GSD's.
Further, the statement of each registry having thier own vision is not true. Every registry is and has been breeding to the Shiloh Shepherd Breed Standard that was given freely to everyone up until the last year or so. Even though now Barber wants to claim ownership to the standard, it is still the tool everyone has been using, thus, the claim each has thier own vision for the future of the breed is very misleading.
The article as written now is fair and balanced and as Jareth said it fits other dog project sites and has my vote as being accepted. ShenandoahShilohs
Patti,
Please correct me if I am wrong:
- Aren't these dogs named after the kennel of origin - Shiloh Shepherds?
- Wasn't the ISSR, started in 1991, the governing body for these dogs?
- Isn't the only other breed added by way of a dog that was a GSD/Malamute mix. But isn't it also true that not ALL dogs that left the AKC in 1990 had this dog in its genetics.
The suggested history section does not say that the ISSR is the sole Shiloh registry, it states that in 1991 the ISSR was created to be the governing body for the dogs, which is true. The suggested history section states (without going into specific details) that in 1990 these dogs were separated from the AKC, which is true. The suggested history section states that other registries/clubs have been formed, which is true. If the phrase "each having their own vision for the future of the breed" is not accurate in your opinion, then it can be removed.
How does this sound?
The Shiloh Shepherd was developed by breed founder Tina Barber of Shiloh Shepherds Kennel in New York state in a sustained effort over the last third of the 20th century. Her goal was to preserve the type of German Shepherd she remembered as a child in Germany. Those dogs were big, mentally sound, and beautiful. In 1990, these re-created dogs were separated from the AKC and in 1991 the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) (based on Von Stephanitz's SV) was established to be the official governing body for the breed.
As the breed gained recognition and popularity near the turn of the millenium, new registries and clubs began to form.
In the External Links section of the article is listed all the registries/clubs
I know you have strong personal feelings and so do many others. Can we please work together to create an article that can be acceptable to all parties involved?SandraSS 23:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not see what is wrong with the above version of the history that Sandra has provided. The ISSR is the original registry. The other clubs came later. That can not be disputed, can it? Michelle Johnson
66.21.156.244 I like it the way it is written now, as agreed upon : "The Shiloh Shepherd Dog has been under development since 1974 by the breed founder, Tina Barber of Shiloh Shepherds (Kennel) in New York state. Tina Barber's stated intention was to create an exceptionally intelligent companion dog, reminiscent of the trained dogs in the film and television series The Littlest Hobo.
As the breed achieved recognition and popularity near the turn of the millennium, other registries were formed, as well as a second breed club for these registries. The breed now has multiple registries, including The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR), The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR), the National Shiloh Breeders Registry (NSBR), and the Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA). There are two Shiloh Shepherd Dog Clubs, the Shilohs Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA) and the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC)."
I don't accept it the way Sandra has written it above this. It again tries to set apart the ISSR as the only recognized registry, which it is not.NobleAcres 01:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)gloria
YOU ALL AGREE THAT THIS BREED IS "RECOGNIZED" BY *ABRA* right? Well ... ARBA did NOT recognize any of the *other* registries ...as you seem to claim ... and even states so on THEIR wbsite!! PLEASE READ http://www.arba.org/ShilohShepherd1BS.htm Tina M. Barber
I like the way the article is written currently. It reflects the listing of the registries and clubs in the manner that the support poll was taken and largely voted in favor of. First listing was given to the ISSR and the SSDC in registry and club listing. The current way it reads is neutral and without "bias" or "emotional" attachments.
I would vote to keep it as it is written currently. Iamgateway--
Response to Sandra's article suggestions
Sandra writes:
Please correct me if I am wrong:
Aren't these dogs named after the kennel of origin - Shiloh Shepherds?
Wasn't the ISSR, started in 1991, the governing body for these dogs?
Isn't the only other breed added by way of a dog that was a GSD/Malamute mix. But isn't it also true that not ALL dogs that left the AKC in 1990 had this dog in its genetics.
Yes it is true that some dogs that left AKC didn't have Sampson in thier pedigree at that time, but lets not go there about any other breed. Tina has made many claims thru the years of another breed added through the Baker line. Remember all of her stories about the big gray dog?
Sandra writes:
the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) (based on Von Stephanitz's SV)
I take great umbrage in the comparison of the ISSR to the SV. Here are some of the basic SV rules"
Basic SV breed requirements
Inbreeding of 2-2 or closer (breedings between litter mates or to their parents or grand parents) are not permitted.
Both dogs must have a minimum SchH1 or IP1 or HGH training degree and the "a" stamp (Hip certificate).
The male must have completed his 24th month before he can be used as a stud dog, and may serve a maximum of 60 bitches annually, spaced evenly throughout the year. Artificial inseminations are not permitted.
A female must have completed her 20th month before she can be mated for the first time.
Now lets face facts. The Shiloh was created on inbreeding, which is against the SV rules. It has never been mandatory for any Shiloh to have a working title. SV Hip ratings were issued by licensed SV Vets, not by the breeder of the dog as was the case when the ISSR was established and still in practice today. Males can be bred within the ISSR at 12 months, the SV 24 months. ISSR females only 19 months, SV 20 months before being bred.
These are just the basic SV requirements, and none are ISSR requirements.
The only similarity of the ISSR to the SV is the LMX program, but then T Barber has always claimed that was her invention.
We could go into more of the SV rules and how the ISSR is at the opposite spectum, but the fact is, comparing the ISSR to the SV is extremly misleading.
Again, the article as written is the most accurate and unbias.
Jareth - Your Opinion Please [and other dogbreed project editors]
- It is FACT not POV that Tina Barber is the breed founder
- It is FACT not POV that these dogs are a result of her goal to preserve the GSD as she knew it
- It is FACT not POV that these dogs are named for the kennel of origin - Shiloh Shepherds - which has been Tina Barbers kennel name since 1974.
- It is FACT not POV that in 1990, these dogs were taken out of the AKC
- It is FACT not POV that in 1991, Tina Barber established the ISSR as the official registry for this breed.
- It is FACT not POV that Tina Barber stated she based the ISSR on the SV
Nothing stated in the proposed history section is POV, it is all fact. I don't see any "legitimate' reason why those facts cannot be included in the article. What I do see is an attempt by the other group to disregard the significance of the ISSR by not including the fact that, in 1991, it was the first and only established registry.
The NSBR was established in 2001, the TSSR was established in 2002, the SSBA was established ??
Sandra writes: *It is FACT not POV that Tina Barber stated she based the ISSR on the SV Gloria replies: Again we're getting into what is true and what TB STATED. The fact is ISSR is not based on the SV. Maybe in someone's mind it is.......NobleAcres 14:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Gloria
- This is another one of those cases where we need a source. If Tina's website states that she based in on the SV, there's no reason not to include it unless someone has a reference that states she did not (a reference defining SV wouldn't work since that would be asking us to do our own research and make a conclusion of truth). .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually her web site is once again based on her own original research. Even taking that in play, if you read her own link for the ISSR Registry, there is no mention of it being based on the SV. Further, there was a 32 page booklet written in the early 90's titled "The Origins of the Shiloh Shepherd" "In Word and Picture" There were other writers of this booklet as well as Ms Barber. It was printed and presented by the SSDCA and NO where in this booklet does it say that the ISSR was based on the SV. Moreover, Ms Barber presented the ISSR's system as her own creation. She wrote " A very complex LMX system was designed" If the claims of it being based on the SV were true, then it should have said " A very complex LMX program based on the SV was used". Instead she wrote it had to be designed.
The following is a quote from this booklet and is also on her own web site:
These dogs did not come about by accident, "HUNDREDS OF LITTERS HAD TO BE BORN AND THOUSANDS of puppies were tested, using various combinations of American and German lines. Only the best possible offspring were retained, to be used for future breedings." A very complex LMX (Littermate-information) system was designed to weed out any inferior recessive genes. This later proved to be of IMMENSE value in helping breeders to better understand the TOTAL "GENETIC MAKEUP" (BLUEPRINT) of their stock. Specially designed-detailed pedigrees, using the latest computer technology can be obtained through the ISSR. http://www.shilohshepherds.org/issr,inc.htm
Ms Barber has made many changes to the "History" of the Shiloh Shepherd in recent years, thus the claim of the ISSR being based on the SV. In fact with all the mention of the ISSR on her website, I only found the mention of being "based on the SV" in one newer article.
A writers POV is just that. How many times have you watched a movie where it claims "based on a true story", and it nothing like the true story. Somewhere down the line Ms Barber added this claim of being based on the SV, but that is again, her recent POV on her own website. It is also a making a mockery of the real SV. ShenandoahShilohs
- Sounds like that fact doesn't merit inclusion then. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Jareth: Would a web article written by Tina Barber be considered a reliable source? The article found here http://www.shilohshepherds.org/kennelof.htm was written by Tina Barber and clearly states that she developed a very strict registry based on the SV that worked so well in Germany. The words 'very strict registry' is linked to the ISSR website. Would this be seen as a reliable source that this is in fact, what she has stated? Whether anyone believes the ISSR is based on the SV is not the point. The point is, Tina Barber has stated that the ISSR was based on the SV. SandraSS
- The problem with taking anything off these web sites are they all written by Tina Barber or approved by her, thus her POV.
- These web pages are so full of contraditions it can be mind boggling. In some articles the Shiloh Shepherd is a breed of dog, more recent "articles" it is only a breed in development. Some articles say Sabrina is one of the great foundation females, more recent articles discredit this. These are just a couple of examples.Pages from this web site are an on going project to express her POV at the time they are written. Anything taken from the ISSR/SSDCA web site are Ms Barbers POV and are not verifiable proof and with all the contradictions on these web pages, articles should be disqualified. The ISSDC web site could claim that we are breeding healthier and more stable Shiloh Shepherds than Ms Barbers New Zion kennels. While we may feel that way, it is our POV and would not be accepted in the article. Again, anyone can claim anything on thier own web site, doesn't make it fact.
- Almost all sources push their own POV, often without even realizing it -- in most cases, this is countered by other sources and that helps balance the article. Unfortunately we have limited information available on this topic and have to make do with what we've got. I did a bit of research and I'm having a hard time finding anything published on the Shiloh -- does anyone have any suggestions for other sources? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jareth :) This is indeed a unique situation as the only comprehensive information available about the Shiloh Shepherd is via the web articles Tina Barber has written and made available on her websites. So we have the problem of Wiki rules against POV and the only source of information for these dogs is from the personal website of the Breed Founder.
SandraSS
POV???
Ms Barber has made many changes to the "History" of the Shiloh Shepherd in recent years, thus the claim of the ISSR being based on the SV. In fact with all the mention of the ISSR on her website, I only found the mention of being "based on the SV" in one newer article.
HOGWASH!!! based on is not the same as duplicated!! please view my full reply! Tina M. Barber 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
A writers POV is just that. How many times have you watched a movie where it claims "based on a true story", and it nothing like the true story. Somewhere down the line Ms Barber added this claim of being based on the SV, but that is again, her recent POV on her own website. It is also a making a mockery of the real SV. ShenandoahShilohs
HOGWASH!! I will reply in DETAIL!!! Tina M. Barber 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like that fact doesn't merit inclusion then. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC) NOW I AM GETTING MAD -- AND WILL START MY WIKI *FACTS* ARTICLE TODAY! Tina M. Barber 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Jareth: Would a web article written by Tina Barber be considered a reliable source? The article found here http://www.shilohshepherds.org/kennelof.htm was written by Tina Barber and clearly states that she developed a very strict registry based on the SV that worked so well in Germany. The words 'very strict registry' is linked to the ISSR website. Would this be seen as a reliable source that this is in fact, what she has stated? Whether anyone believes the ISSR is based on the SV is not the point. The point is, Tina Barber has stated that the ISSR was based on the SV. SandraSS
THANKYOU SANDRA ... A SANE PERSON IN THIS MIRE OF HOGWASH!!! Tina M. Barber 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem with taking anything off these web sites are they all written by Tina Barber or approved by her, thus her POV.
SAME IS TRUE FOR THE "OTHER" REGISTRY SITES ... THE *ONLY* PROOF THAT THEY EVEN EXIST IS *THEIR* POV!!!! Tina M. Barber 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Tina, honestly the constant attacks on the other registries and editors are getting you nowhere. You've been asked repeatedly to stop; please find a way to discuss the issue without resorting to threats. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Words of Wisdom?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_population_size
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics
Click here: Dog hybrids and crossbreeds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
in their OWN words!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_hybrids_and_crossbreeds
<< Dog hybrids are not recognized by the main registries. They should not be confused with independent breeds, which are also not recognized. The difference lies in the longevity of the breed, the numbers of breeders and the existence of a legitimate breed club, the number of specimens of the breed past a certain number of generations, whether or not it breeds true to type, for how long a breed registry has been maintained, and the reason for the non-recognition. Often independent breed clubs oppose recognition, for reasons which usually concern maintaining independent control of the qualities of their chosen breed. >>
maybe you should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding
THE ANSWERS YOUR ARE LOOKING FOR ARE RIGHT ON YOUR WIKI PAGES!! WHY CAN'T SOMEONE JUST FOLLOW WHAT THESE PAGES SAY????
If some of the editors here take a good look at what the WIKI has to say about situations like this one .. maybe you will be able to get a better idea of WHAT you are dealing with???
MAYBE YOU ALL SHOULD LOOK AT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purebred
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed_registry Anybody here bothered to read THIS???
I plan on doing a full blown out web page about this entire issue!!! Tina M. Barber 16:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've read all that and seen the pages many times before. What does that have to do with the discussion? Is this another attempt to say that the other registries aren't registries? I don't understand why you posted these. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you please show me what criteria (PROOF) they have to PROVE that they *are* 'registries' ... as per the WIKI .... Not just thier own POV websites!!! Tina M. Barber 17:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually you've brought up a good point. Right now the only sources we have for the article are third-party and of increasingly dubious credibility. Perhaps this applies (from WP:V):
- Obscure topics
- Subjects that have never been written about by third-party published sources, or that have only been written about in sources of dubious credibility should not be included in Wikipedia. One of the reasons for this policy is the difficulty of verifying the information. As there are no reputable sources available, it would require original research, and Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. Insistence on verifiability is often sufficient to exclude such articles.
- This would seem to suggest that the article might need to be seriously edited since the only source we currently have is the ARBA website which lists the breed standards. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Jareth: I am thinking that perhaps, the best solution to this problem is to remove the Shiloh Shepherd Article completely from the Wikipedia website. There simply is no way to write a factual article without using information from Tina Barber's websites, which is considered original research.
SandraSS
SV v. ISSR
I take great umbrage in the comparison of the ISSR to the SV. Here are some of the basic SV rules"
Basic SV breed requirements
Inbreeding of 2-2 or closer (breedings between litter mates or to their parents or grand parents) are not permitted.
IT'S NOT PERMITTED IN THE ISSR EITHER!! ACTUALLY, WE TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER AND INSIST ON LOW RC VALUES, TO AVOID OVER INBREEDING!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
Granted, the *breed* was established via inbreeding during the 70's & 80's but that IS how foundations are set!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding#Selective_Breeding_Methods
WE NOW USE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding#Crossbreeding_and_backbreeding ONLY, AS PER THE NB CRITERIA, AND THUS FAR ONLY 2 DOGS (IN 17 YEARS) HAVE BEEN EXCEPTED!!! Tina M. Barber 17:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Both dogs must have a minimum SchH1 or IP1 or HGH training degree and the "a" stamp (Hip certificate).
THE ISSR DOES NOT REQUIRE SCH. TITLES, BUT THAT IS BECAUSE WE ARE *NOT* GSD'S!!! HOWEVER, WE DO REQUIRE TEMPERAMENT TESTS, HIP CERTIFICATION, SIZE VERIFICATION, ETC. ETC.
The male must have completed his 24th month before he can be used as a stud dog, and may serve a maximum of 60 bitches annually, spaced evenly throughout the year. Artificial inseminations are not permitted.
WE USE MALES A BIT SOONER DUE TO THE LIMITED GENEPOOL ... AND VERY FEW MALES EVER BREED 60 BITCHES IN THEIR LIFETIME .. WE JUST DON'T HAVE THAT MANY TO GO AROUND!!!!
A female must have completed her 20th month before she can be mated for the first time.
WE REQUIRE THAT SE IS ATLEAST 21 MONTHS ... YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS??
Now lets face facts. The Shiloh was created on inbreeding, which is against the SV rules. It has never been mandatory for any Shiloh to have a working title. SV Hip ratings were issued by licensed SV Vets, not by the breeder of the dog as was the case when the ISSR was established and still in practice today. Males can be bred within the ISSR at 12 months, the SV 24 months. ISSR females only 19 months, SV 20 months before being bred.
WE HAVE EXACT DETAILS (VIA OUR WEBSITES) RGARDING HIP CERTIFICATION, AND IF YOU READ OUR OUTLINE, WE ARE EVEN STRICTER THEN THE SV!!! http://www.shilohshepherds.info/siteMapHips.htm
These are just the basic SV requirements, and none are ISSR requirements.
The only similarity of the ISSR to the SV is the LMX program, but then T Barber has always claimed that was her invention.
I DON'T CLAIM IT AS MY *INVENTION* JUST THAT THIS WAS THE SYSTEM I ESTABLISHED FOR MY DOGS .. IT IS NOW USED BY MANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING THE OFA!!
We could go into more of the SV rules and how the ISSR is at the opposite spectum, but the fact is, comparing the ISSR to the SV is extremly misleading.
I NEVER CLAIMED THAT THE ISSR WAS THE *SAME* AS THE SV .. JUST THAT MANY OF OUR RULES WERE *BASED* on *that* SYSTEM!!! http://www.shilohshepherds.info/siteMapTheRegistry.htm
Again, the article as written is the most accurate and unbias.
ShenandoahShilohs HOGWASH Tina M. Barber 17:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
JUST FACTS
VERY SIMPLE MATRIX
History of each "registry"
http://www.shilohshepherds.com/buyersBeware/registryComparisonMatrix1.htm
Breeder Requirements
http://www.shilohshepherds.com/buyersBeware/registryComparisonMatrix2.htm
MORE DETAILS
http://www.shilohshepherds.com/buyersBeware/registyComparisons.htm
Tina M. Barber 18:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
ARBA
When ARBA accepted the Shiloh Shepherd as a breed they accepted the Shiloh Breed Standard. No one has tried to dispute the use of this breed standard, nor asked them to accept anything different.
ARBA has always accepted Shilohs from all registries, in fact thier number #1 top ARBA dog this year is a Shiloh Shepherd by the name of Sir Harley of Shenandoah. He is not now, nor ever been registered with the ISSR. http://www.arba.org/2005ShowPoints.htm
The accept the ISSR breed standard for show purposes only. They not only accept Shilohs from all the registries, they even register Shiloh Shepherds themselves.
The only thing proven with ARBA's posting of the breed standard is it was the original, and still accepted breed standard. If they didn't recognize Shilohs from other registries then thier #1 all breed dog of 2005 would not be a non ISSR Shiloh. Further, if they only accepted ISSR as the only registry, then they would not register Shilohs Shepherds themselves.
Since the breed standard has never been in dispute, I am not sure what any of this has to do with the article. Actually, with them awarding Sir Harley of Shenandoah thier #1 2005 dog, it only proves that they also recognize the other Shiloh registries and have done so for years.
Shiloh Shepherd Recognition
Almost all sources push their own POV, often without even realizing it -- in most cases, this is countered by other sources and that helps balance the article. Unfortunately we have limited information available on this topic and have to make do with what we've got. I did a bit of research and I'm having a hard time finding anything published on the Shiloh -- does anyone have any suggestions for other sources? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Jareth, What would you need from the organizations that DO accept the Shiloh Shepherd AS A BREED? As well as the fact that they do, in fact, accept Shiloh Shepherds with registration papers from the NSBR, SSBA, and TSSR?
- Considering Ms. Barber is proclaiming that ARBA only recognizes ISSR paperwork in regard to the Shiloh Shepherd. If you were to go to the points page for 2005 the top winning dog on the ARBA website, a Shiloh Shepherd is listed. He is NOT registered with the ISSR but ARBA did in fact accept his paperwork. Per their rules a dog must be registered with them in order to maintain show points, so therefore they do in fact recognize those registries that warrant inclusion in the aforementioned article.
- As an additional question....would magazine publications be acceptable as far as verification? My stand point on this would be "Several dog exclusive magazines do advertise the Shiloh Shepherd. They accept ads from ALL Shiloh exclusive registries as well as from both acknowledged Shiloh Shepherd breed clubs. Since the SSDCA, Ms. Barber, and other ISSR breeders use these magazines as vehicles to not only promote their kennels, but also the Shiloh Shepherd breed, they view them as valid resources."
ANYONE CAN RUN AN ADD IN THESE MAGS!! SO WHAT??? THE MUNCHKINS & KINGS ARE IN THERE TOO ... DOES THAT PROVE THAT THEY ARE A "RECOGNIZED" BREED? Tina M. Barber 21:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Shiloh Shepherd Recognition (continued)
Jareth, you have asked about other 3rd party, independent, unbiased resources who recognize not only the the Shiloh Shepherd as a breed, but also recognize the NSBR, TSSR, and SSBA as legitimate registries for that breed. Here is an additional resource:
Rarities, Inc. (see: http://www.raritiesinc.ca/)
- "Rarities is the fastest growing all breed dog club of the United States."
- Rarities goals:
- "To host shows for the ancient and rare breed dogs & AKC breeds as well."
- "To preserve and protect all of the ancient and rare breeds."
Per Rarities Rules and Regulations (see: http://www.raritiesinc.ca/rules%20&%20regs.htm):
- CHAPTER 5 - DOG SHOW ENTRIES ELIGIBILITY
- “SECTION 2. Any breed of dog that is recognized by RARITIES INC., either whelped in the United States or foreign, is eligible to participate in the dog shows of RARITIES INC. As long as it has a valid certified (3) three generation pedigree, certified by a club or organization which RARITIES INC. recognizes and accepts its pedigrees.”::
Then please see:
- Rarities Top Dog of 2006 Points List (http://www.raritiesinc.ca/top%20dog%202006.htm)
- Rarities Top Dog of 2005 Points List (http://www.raritiesinc.ca/top%20dog%202005.htm)
- Rarities Top Dogs For 2004 (http://www.raritiesinc.ca/top%20dog%202004.htm)
Please note that most, if not all, dogs listed for these years are non-ISSR registered dogs, registered with NSBR, TSSR, and the SSBA. 69.173.135.114 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Thank you. Miles D.
BECAUSE THOSE WERE THE ONLY DOGS BEING SHOWN AT ALL OF THE SHOWS!! BIG DEAL! IT ONLY PROVES THAT RARITIES WILL TAKE MONEY FROM ANYONE! http://www.shilohshepherds.info/hartfordPetExpo.htm Tina M. Barber 21:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am sure everyone reading these discussions are as tired as I am of reading post by Tina Barber, all in screaming caps, and discrediting anyone or any organization that does not support her own POV. Rarities is a well known and respected show organization with shows held accross the country. Everytime these organizations, that use her breed standard, place a non ISSR Shiloh above a ISSR Shiloh she attacks them.
- She has violated virtually every standard Wiki has set, yet is allowed to continue with her attacks. Her nasty, unprofessional, threatening manner is a disgrace.
The WIKI has your answers!!!
PLEASE READ
Purebred dogs In the hobby of dog fancy, the word 'purebred' causes controversy, largely because of unresolved differences of opinion over what constitutes a breed.
In general, there are two types of purebred: those 'recognized' by a kennel club and those of independent breed clubs.
Kennel clubs usually have strict sets of criteria for the recognition of a new or existing dog breed, normally with some period of developmental or provisional status. It cannot be assumed that the date of recognition of a breed indicates how long the breed has existed as a pure breed.
FOR MORE DATA, GO TO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purebred
THEN PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO CLICK ON http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennel_club
THEN IF YOU ARE STILL UNSURE .. PLEASE READ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breed Tina M. Barber 22:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Attn: Jareth - NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC History Section Proposal
Jareth: In good faith, taking into consideration the ISSR's proposals for the "History" section of this article, while at the same time ensuring fair, unbiased representation for all registries/clubs affiliated with the Shiloh Shepherd, please see below what contributors to this discussion (representing the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC) have unanimously agreed upon as a Proposal for the History section of the Wikipedia Shiloh Shepherd Dog article. They request that you initiate a Straw Poll to seek discussion and consensus from all contributors (including "independent" contributors (i.e. Elf and Trysha), in order that this part of the article may be finalized.
Proposed:
(start)During the mid-1970’s, Tina Barber, of Shiloh Shepherd Kennel in New York State, began developing a unique line of German Shepherd Dogs. Her goal was to preserve the type of German Shepherd Dog she remembered as a child in Germany; dogs who are good family companions, exceptionally intelligent, mentally sound, big and beautiful, and similar to Chuck Eisenmann’s “Hobo” dogs.
Following the introduction of a non-German Shepherd into the breeding program, these dogs were separated from the AKC. In 1990, recognition for this rare breed was granted and it was formally named the "Shiloh Shepherd" after its kennel of origin. Soon after, the first Shiloh Shepherd registry, International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) was formed, and an official Shiloh Shepherd Breed Standard was written.
As the breed grew in popularity, additional registries were formed which adhere to the original Shiloh Shepherd Breed Standard. These are: the National Shiloh Breeders Registry (NSBR), The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR), and the Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA).
There are two Shiloh Shepherd Dog Clubs: the Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA), which is affiliated with the ISSR, and the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC), which is affiliated with the NSBR, TSSR, and the SSBA.
Additional information about this breed can be found in several all-breed publications, websites, and books. The Shiloh Shepherd has grown in number and popularity and it continues to be embraced by rare breed organizations and dog fanciers alike.(end)
69.173.135.114 22:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Thank you. MilesD.
Just Opinion (Was "Just Facts")
VERY SIMPLE MATRIX
History of each "registry"
http://www.shilohshepherds.com/buyersBeware/registryComparisonMatrix1.htm
Breeder Requirements
http://www.shilohshepherds.com/buyersBeware/registryComparisonMatrix2.htm
MORE DETAILS
http://www.shilohshepherds.com/buyersBeware/registyComparisons.htm
Tina M. Barber 18:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
My Response....
- The title to the previous "thread" is mis-leading. Considering that the links direct the reader to a website based on the writings of the poster, they are nothing more than statements made with a "little bit of truth" thrown in for good measure.
- The link dropping made in regard to what other registries require, don't require, adhere to or don't adhere to etc; has no bearing on the discussion at hand.
Ms. Barber, the facts are these;
- 1. You do not decide what an accepted registry is or isn't. Those legitimate organizations that showcase breeds are a determining factor here. ARBA (American Rare Breed Association), Rarities Inc., IABCA (International All Breed Canine Association), FORB (Federation of Rare Breeds), and the RBCSWO (Rare Breed Club of SouthWestern Ontario) have done so.
- 2. You are only involved with the ISSR/SSDCA so what goes on within other registries/clubs would only be an assumption on your part and therefore be considered "opinion".
- 3. You gave up the right to have sole control/proprietorship over the breeding of Shiloh Shepherds when you sold progeny to the public.
- 4. Distorting the truth about the NSBR, SSBA, and TSSR on your website does not change the fact that they exist. In fact, it gives acknowledgement from you that they DO exist and are thriving!
SORRY ... I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THEM THRIVING I ACKNOWLEDGED FACTS AS PER THE INFO ON THEIR WEBSITES ... PERIOD!! THIS WAS ALSO DONE BY http://canadasguidetodogs.com/breeders.htm#otherbreeds
History -- my last try!!!
History
The Shiloh Shepherd Dog has been under development since 1974 by the breed founder, Tina M. Barber of Shiloh Shepherds (Kennel) in New York State, in an effort to create an exceptionally intelligent companion dog, reminiscent of the trained dogs in the film and television series The Littlest Hobo.
As the breed achieved popularity, Tina Barber wrote a new Breed Standard
http://www.shilohshepherds.info/issrShilohShepherdIllustratedBreedStandardDonorsFinal.htm when she chose to separate some of her dogs from the AKC and set specific criteria for individuals that would be allowed to enter the new breed development program as of 1990. http://www.shilohshepherds.info/originalISSRrules.htm
In 1991 the ISSR was officially Incorporated, and the SSDCA, Inc. was approved as the parent club for this breed, while under development. Since that time over 4,000 dogs have been registered as per the ISSR rules, and the TCCP has continued to maintain extended data on them, as well as over 45,000 ancestors in order to properly calculate various factors within this limited genepool.
Near the turn of the millennium, other registries were formed, and a second breed club was started in 2004, for these registries. The breed now has multiple registries, that are constantly in conflict. Please view external links for more details.
ASIDE FROM ADDING IN SOME GOOD LINKS (TO WIKI FACT SITES) I THINK THIS WOULD PROVIDE AN HONEST NPOV ARTICLE Tina M. Barber 00:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not accept this edited version. Again it tears down and discredits the other registries and creates an antagonistic attitude towards them by stating they are in constant conflict. Ms. Barber, if you claim to have no affiliation with these organizations, how do you substantiated that statement?
Ms. Barber, we are attempting to do this without the attitude of negativity. The other registries are doing the absolute opposite of what you claim, they have unified and written an article of consensus as seen above. That does not depict conflict. Join in and instead of creating waves, try to come up with a realistic article that can be met with consensus. Iamgateway
- Once again this is an attempt at a bogus article filled with self righteous fantasies of ones personal POV which can not be verified. I am not sure what part of neutral is not understood, but this attempt is far from neutral, verifiable or factual. It may be Ms Barber's recent POV that the Shiloh is "under development", but it has been proven time and again by not only quotes from her former writings to all the organizations that recognize the Shiloh Shepherd as a Breed.
- The article sumitted as accepted by the NSBR,TSSR,SSBA, and ISSDC was clearly written as a neutral point of view while still acknowledging MS Barber as the founder and her ISSR as the first Shiloh registry which were her main objections previously.
- It is painfully obvious that while all other parties have been professional in thier attempt to form a neutral article on the Shiloh Shepherd, MS Barber is still trying to propagate her personal agenda with negativity and hostility toward all other parties.
One can only hope the subject of this thread is true, her last try at such a bias article. ShenandoahShilohs
Since you have all compromised to agree Tina Barber was the breed founder, the SSDCA and the ISSR the first club and registry, that Tina Barber wrote the breed standard, I am not sure why you would object to Tina's synopsis? Perhaps if the last two sentences were amended to
"Near the turn of the millennium, an alternate club and registry were formed. These organizations went out of existence in 2001. Breeders associated with this alternate registry then formed several other registries, and a second breed club was started in 2004. Please view external links for more details." Trillhill 02:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
My reply to *your* proposal!
Proposed:
(start)During the mid-1970’s, Tina Barber, of Shiloh Shepherd Kennel in New York State, began developing a unique line of German Shepherd Dogs. Her goal was to preserve the type of German Shepherd Dog she remembered as a child in Germany; dogs who are good family companions, exceptionally intelligent, mentally sound, big and beautiful, and similar to Chuck Eisenmann’s “Hobo” dogs.
SORRY, BUT THE SHILOHS DON'T *LOOK* ANYTHING LIKE THE HOBO DOGS .. THEY JUST HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF *INTELLIGENCE* YOU MAY WANT TO COMPARE PICTURES!
Following the introduction of a non-German Shepherd into the breeding program, these dogs were separated from the AKC. In 1990, recognition for this rare breed was granted BY WHOM & FOR WHAT??? and it was formally named the "Shiloh Shepherd" after its kennel of origin. Soon after, the first Shiloh Shepherd registry, International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) was formed, and an official Shiloh Shepherd Breed Standard was written.
As the breed grew in popularity, additional registries were formed which adhere to the original Shiloh Shepherd Breed Standard. These are: the National Shiloh Breeders Registry (NSBR), The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR), and the Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA).
NO DATES?? I THINK THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT FACT!! THIS IS NOT POV ... THE SHILOH WAS STARTED IN 1974, RECOGNIZED BY ARBA FOR SHOW PURPOSES IN LATE 1991, AND THE "OTHER" REGISTRIES (THAT ARE BEING LISTED) DIDN'T START TILL 2002?
There are two Shiloh Shepherd Dog Clubs: the Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA), which is affiliated with the ISSR, and the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC), which is affiliated with the NSBR, TSSR, and the SSBA.
NOT ACCEPTABLE!! IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY ARE EQUAL! THE SSDCA STARTED IN 1991, THE *NEW* ONE JUST STARTED IN 2004!!
Additional information about this breed can be found in several all-breed publications, websites, and books. The Shiloh Shepherd has grown in number and popularity and it continues to be embraced by rare breed organizations and dog fanciers alike.(end)
69.173.135.114 22:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Thank you. MilesD.
MY REPLY TO EACH ITEM IN QUESTION IS IN CAPS, IN ORDER TO PREVENT CONFUSION Tina M. Barber 01:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
IF YOU WANT FACTS, CHECK OUT http://www.shilohshepherds.com/letterToUKC.htm
response to editor barbar
again ms barbar fails to make any attempt to reach resolution in this article. the editor appears to have no grasp on the wiki concept, the no pov concept, the no original research concept and fails to respond to any valid posts without some attempt at discrediting the parties involved (and for some reason always thinks that capitialization and excessive use of the exclamation point helps prove her points).
how long should editors like this should be allowed to continue to hold up the development of the article.
the question was raised about sources that will help validate the non-issr registries. the link provided by an editor demostrated that one of the largest rare breed associations (rarities inc) not only confirms their recognition (rules quoted) but helped illustrate a sampling of numbers and their successes of these non issr shilohs while be measured against the same breed standard. instead of providing a decent response, editor barbar states again it's a money scam (this is a common position for her as can be seen in past posts). i am sure she would state the same about arba, nkc and the other rare breed associations that observe the clubs, registries, and dogs for what they are - valid.
someone with time on their hands should count the number of self referencing links, excessive use of capitals, and constant exclamation points used by editor barbar since the beginning of this article.
and on her numbers claim, i think this was previously discussed. recently an editor questioned why there were 2427 issr shilohs listed on the site in jan 2001 and 4000 in jan 2005 - no response was given. an increase of 1573 in 4 years, yet the editors own link states about 150 issr puppies are born per year. the math would appear wrong (not that it is even valid here and the entire number is not relevant in the article at all).
the tccp is simply a residence in texas when the data is entered into a home made database. this is good, but does not make it any better or any worse than any other registry tracking pedigrees. one could say the nsbr data is tracked at the canine data tracking institute in pennsylvania.
the editor continues to use negative terms such as "the other registries are in constant conflict" but the only conflict seen here is being created by the editor in question. the users from the non-issr have been heads and users of the non-issr registries and seem to be getting along just fine.
a great deal of work and discussion has taken place here with many of the parties closing on a collective article, but it appears that one single user will not allow this to happen (even though they've been negative, banned, and uncooperative)
with the constant use of links by the editor without any reasoning it is very hard to understand what possible debate the editor is trying to make. links (external, verifiable, etc) should be used to refernce and support a statement made in a discussion not thrown about leaving other editors to try and find what the editor is trying to say.
the only question remaining is how long will this editor be allowed to stop any progress in this article. i guess we can only hope that this is the editors last involvement here. Gwyllgi 02:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Refusals
Ms Barber wrote:
- "NOT ACCEPTABLE!! IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY ARE EQUAL! THE SSDCA STARTED IN 1991, THE *NEW* ONE JUST STARTED IN 2004!!"
- Please, there is no need to shout your POV like a tantrum.
- Equality is not measured by longevity, but by quality. It is your POV that the clubs are not equal, but once again that is your POV only. Many feel that the ISSDC is a much better club, but we are not trying to write our POV in an article about the dogs. Your objections are duly noted but not substantiated.
Patti, you know that Tina has stated that she is using capitals to distinguish what she is writing from what you wrote. We too are just trying to state facts...such as the dates when the different registries were formed, which were taken from your own website(s). Trillhill 02:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
==Jareth, We now have 3 Proposals for History section of Shiloh Shepherd Dog Article== I too, must admit,I am tired of being shouted at and harangued by the use of insulting words and shouting tone and I again earnestly request that Ms. Barber please work with the group, engage in dialogue not monologue, communicate in good faith, and maintain her dignity, in order to bring this article to completion, our common goal. TrillHill, whereas I appreciate your explanation for her behavior, it just is not true. Ms. Barber has constantly used excessive uppercase throughout the entirety of this discussion, just not in response to ShenandoahShilohs, but in response to everyone (including the Moderator,Jareth), who is simply trying to help. So, please, may we move on.
That being said:
At present, it would appear we now have three clear History Section Proposals (SandraSS History Proposal (A), NSBR,TSSR,SSBA,ISSDC History Proposal (B) and Tina Barber History Proposal (C))
- (See: Content #12-Archive 3 "Article Suggestion Clarified" - SandraSS)
- (See: Content #14-Current "Attn: Jareth-NSBR,TSSR,SSBA,andISSDC History Section Proposal")
- (See: Content #14.2-Current "History -- my last try!!!" - Tina Barber)
I believe they are as follows:
--(A) Sandra SS Proposal:
- (start)The Shiloh Shepherd was developed by breed founder Tina Barber of Shiloh Shepherds Kennel in New York state in a sustained effort over the last third of the 20th century. Her goal was to preserve the type of German Shepherd she remembered as a child in Germany. Those dogs were big, mentally sound, and beautiful. In 1990, Barber separated her dogs from the AKC and in 1991 created the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR)(based on Von Stephanitz's SV) as the official governing body for the breed.
- As the breed gained recognition and popularity near the turn of the millenium, new registries and clubs began to form, each having their own vision for the future of the breed.
- [SandraSS note at bottom of Proposal: "The existing registries and clubs can all be listed in the external links section of the article. People will be free to visit them and make their own decision from there."](end)
--(B) NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, ISSDC History Proposal:
- (start)During the mid-1970’s, Tina Barber, of Shiloh Shepherd Kennel in New York State, began developing a unique line of German Shepherd Dogs. Her goal was to preserve the type of German Shepherd Dog she remembered as a child in Germany; dogs who are good family companions, exceptionally intelligent, mentally sound, big and beautiful, and similar to Chuck Eisenmann’s “Hobo” dogs.
- Following the introduction of a non-German Shepherd into the breeding program, these dogs were separated from the AKC. In 1990, recognition for this rare breed was granted and it was formally named the "Shiloh Shepherd" after its kennel of origin. Soon after, the first Shiloh Shepherd registry, International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) was formed, and an official Shiloh Shepherd Breed Standard was written.
- As the breed grew in popularity, additional registries were formed which adhere to the original Shiloh Shepherd Breed Standard. These are: the National Shiloh Breeders Registry (NSBR), The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR), and the Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA).
- There are two Shiloh Shepherd Dog Clubs: the Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA), which is affiliated with the ISSR, and the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC), which is affiliated with the NSBR, TSSR, and the SSBA.
- Additional information about this breed can be found in several all-breed publications, websites, and books. The Shiloh Shepherd has grown in number and popularity and it continues to be embraced by rare breed organizations and dog fanciers alike.(end)
--(C) Tina Barber History Proposal:
- (start)The Shiloh Shepherd Dog has been under develoopment since 1974 by the breed founder, Tina M. Barber of Shiloh Shepherds (Kennel) in New York Ste, in an effort to create an exceptionally intelligent companion dog, reminiscent of the trained dogs in the film and television series The Littlest Hobo.
- As the breed achieved popularity, Tina Barber wrote a new Breed Standard
- http://www.shilohshepherds.info/issrShilohShepherdIllustratedBreedStandardDonorsFinal.htm
- when she chose to separate some of her dogs from the AKC and set specific criteria for individuals that would be allowed to enter the new breed development program as of 1990. http://www.shilohshepherds.info/originalISSRrules.htm
- In 1991 the ISSR was officially Incorporated, and the SSDCA, Inc. was approved as the parent club for this breed, while under development. Since that time over 4,000 dogs have been registered as per the ISSR rules, and the TCCP has continued to maintain extended data on them, as well as over 45,000 ancestors in order to properly calculate various factors within this limited genepool.
- Near the turn of the millennium, other registries were formed, and a second breed club was started in 2004, for these registries. The breed now has multiple registries, that are constantly in conflict. Please view external links for more details.’’’
- [T. Barber note at bottom of Proposal: "ASIDE FROM ADDING IN SOME GOOD LINKS (TO WIKI FACT SITES) I THINK THIS WOULD PROVIDE AN HONEST NPOV ARTICLE"] (end)
Jareth, would it be possible for you to initiate another Straw Poll (I think it was very helpful before) to seek discussion and consensus from all contributors (including "independent" contributors (i.e. Elf and Trysha), in order that this part of the article may be finalized, and we can move on to other areas of the article? Many contributors are working very hard to be respectful and fair, but we are getting bogged down again by attacks and provocations. Perhaps collecting these Proposals and initiating a Straw Poll will assist as it did before.69.173.135.114 03:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Thank you. MilesD.
re:facts
TB writes: IF YOU WANT FACTS, CHECK OUT http://www.shilohshepherds.com/letterToUKC.htm
Gloria replies: The fact is that TB threatened to sue the UKC if they accepted the Shiloh Shepherd as a breed. NobleAcres 03:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)gloria
Wendy replies: The letter to the UKC is *not* fact. It is another huge example of TB's one sided POV and propoganda as well as absolute intentional false claims. We will have to open up the subject of legal ownership of the name Shiloh Shepherd as it will be an informative conversation. I know that there is no legal ownership to the name, never was. WindsongKennels 04:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
That's not what this debate is about .. although I can prove my use of this name, long before you even knew they existed!! This was published 25 years ago! http://www.shilohshepherd.com/brochure.htm Tina M. Barber 04:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
And this four page ad http://www.shilohs.org/ISSDC/ISSDCPageShilohShepherdPhotos.htm was published last year. (Brag warning :-) This ad made history, the first time any one person or group ever purchased a four page ad in the history of any dog publication. And it was the ISSDC Shiloh Shepherds. I am not disputing you used the name first, I am disputing that you own the word mark or any trademark on the name Shiloh Shepherd. Shiloh Shepherd is public domain. That is a fact. But we can come back to this subject later. WindsongKennels 06:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Wendy, let me remind you of the case with Shelly Watts. Upon settling this case, she started referring to her Shiloh/GSD breedings as King Shepherds. As the secretary for the SSDCA and the ISSR at that time (1996), you signed the agreement. In that agreement, the following points were cited as background:
Background Recitals
A. At all times material hereto, Barber has been a breeder of a particular type of dog, derivative of the German Shepherd. The dog which Barber has bred, has a specific set of unique characteristics of appearance, character, size, proportion and the like. The dogs are bred to a detailed standard, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and made a part hereof.
B. The dog, if it passes all of the specific breed characteristics and is accepted for registry in the ISSR, may bear the trademark name Shiloh Shepherd™.
C. The name Shiloh Shepherd™ has come to have been associated in the mind of the relevant public with a dog bearing these unique and specific characteristics, derived from pure bred dogs originally bred by Barber, and actively registered with the ISSR.
D. ISSR is a dog registry which, at present, registers only dogs meeting the unique and specific characteristics and which meet the other criteria for registry in the ISSR.
E. SSDCA is a New York corporation which is a dog club, operated by and for owners and lovers of dogs who qualify as Shiloh Shepherd™ dogs.
H. ISSR is the only registry of Shiloh Shepherd™ dogs and ISSR™ is the only registry where Barber and SSDCA will permit dogs to be registered under the tradename Shiloh Shepherd™.
The parties now wish to settle and resolve their mutual differences. …the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Defendants acknowledge that Shiloh Shepherd™ and International Shiloh Shepherd Registry, Inc. ™ are valid and protectable trademarks of which Barber and ISSR are the rightful owners, respectively. Defendants affirm Plaintiffs’ trademark rights and agree that no future use or infringement of the name or mark (nor colorable imitation or variation thereof) will be made, irrespective of whether the mark(s) are accepted for registration on the Register. [emphasis added]
2. Defendants agree not to begin or maintain a registry, club or organization that claims any affiliation, origin or sponsorship with Shiloh Shepherd™ (as for example, indicating in advertisements, correspondence, sales materials, etc. that a Schaeferhunde or other breed “originates from” Shiloh Shepherd™ dog), except as specifically permitted in paragraph 3 below.
3. (a) Only dogs duly and actively registered within the ISSR may be referred to as Shiloh Shepherd™ dogs. Any dog which is not properly ISSR registered shall not be referred to by Defendants verbally or in writing, as a Shiloh Shepherd™ dog, or any variance or imitation of the name Shiloh Shepherd™.
(b) The use of the word “Shiloh” may only be used in Defendant’s registration, as proof of lineage, if the name was originally established through AKC registration as having come from Tina Barber’s Shiloh Shepherd Kennels, prior to the formation of the ISSR.
4. (a) Defendants hereby represent, warrant and certify that they have not sold any dogs as “Shiloh Shepherds”™
(b) Defendants agree that they shall not in the future represent or advertise, directly or indirectly, their dogs as "Shiloh Shepherds™" or any variation of the said names bearing the name Shiloh.
5. (a) All Defendants shall immediately and permanently discontinue and refrain from use of the name “Shiloh Shepherd™” and/or “Shiloh” and/or any colorable imitation thereof.
Please reference: http://www.shilohshepherds.com/buyersBeware/courtCasePartI.pdf, http://www.shilohshepherds.com/buyersBeware/courtCasePartII.pdf, http://www.shilohshepherds.com/buyersBeware/courtCasePartIII.pdf, http://www.shilohshepherds.com/buyersBeware/courtCasePartIV.pdf
The last link includes your signature in two places, Wendy, as accepting the settlement. Note that the "TM" symbol was part of the original document. Since these are scans of legal documents, they represent a NPOV.
Trillhill 13:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wendy's reply to Karen.
- By my signature I was a witness to the settlement of that case Karen, I was there and a part of it as the Secretary/Treasurer of both the ISSR and the SSDCA for over four years. My signature did not state "I accepted it" as I was not a defendant.
- This court case named Watts, Turkheimer, and their Shiloh Shepherd dog club as defendants. This case was a 'settled out of court temporary injunction' against named parties for them not to have a Shiloh Shepherd Specialty show at the Pine Barrens Classic held in New Jersey. This case was to preside over them until the Wordmark was issued from the Patent and Trademark Office.
- Today, if Watts and Turheimer wanted to, they could easily re-present their case and win because the trademark was never issued.
- Over and over again the above wordage states "defendants" which are Watts, Turkheimer, and their dog club, no one else is bound by your document and/or the above quotes.
- The backround recitals "A" through "F" you note above are taken directly from the denied PTO application. You also fail to note item "F" and "G" as well as numerous other items off of that "agreement" which further clarify the real meaning of that document.
- Ms. Barber lost the trademark/wordmark case. The little tee emm's that are pasted on everything are bogus. You see Karen, in order to have the little tee emm's mean something you have to police your trademark, which means every time you see someone use the name you claim to have ownership to, you have to contact them in writing and tell them to cease and desist. Ms. Barber never did that, ever. In 1996 and in 1997 the Patent and Trademark office recognized (after many responses from the "public" against Ms. Barber's application) that it was too late, that the name Shiloh Shepherd had proven to be public domain. Ms. Barber never answered the last denial from the Patent and Trademark Office for the wordmark.
- ISSR Trademark Dead 9/16/97
- Shiloh Shepherd Trademark Dead 7/7/98
- I sat with Ms. Barber the last time she visited with an attorney and he clearly told her "she had no further grounds to claim ownership to Shiloh Shepherd that it had become public domain."
- The above mentioned document means nothing further to this discussion. Please let it go. WindsongKennels 16:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Karen, as mentioned in previous sections of these discussions the documents you are presenting were on an out of court agreement beween two parties.
At that time Ms Barber had the financial pupport of her VP of the club who invested somewhere around $25,000 for attorney fees for this dispute and the filling of the Trade Mark request. Ms Watts didn't find it worth the attorney fees to fight this, and at that time there was an application filed for the Trade Mark. Subsequently, the Trade Mark and all appeals were denied by the US Pantent and Trade Mark Office which is easily proven through their Goverment Web Site. The Trade Mark was denied as it was deemed the Shiloh Shepherd was a Breed of Dog, and was public domain. Ms Barber can continue to deceive the public in claiming she has a TM for the Shiloh Shepherd but it is not true and the documents you are proving are nothing more than an out of court agreement. Furthermore, the VP of the SSDCA soon left that club as he also felt he could no longer support it, or Ms Barber. It is evident that people have since, and are still, coming to the same conclusion as this VP and choose to leave the SSDCA/ISSR. That is what is so great about America, people can be free to make choices. Since you feel the need to post links to out of court settlements, maybe people would like to view real court settlements with links proving there is no Trade mark etc. http://shilohbuyerbeware.blogspot.com/ ShenandoahShilohs
Talk Page etiquette
Ms. Barber said: "MY REPLY TO EACH ITEM IN QUESTION IS IN CAPS, IN ORDER TO PREVENT CONFUSION".
Ms. Barber, rather than constantly using uppercase (caps, as you refer to them), perhaps you could just indent your replies by using the colon (:) function. By preceding your statement witha a colon it will indent it under the post to which you are referring. (:The ISSR is a.....)
Also, could you please refrain from your constant overuse of exclamation points (!!!!!!) and question marks (???????). It's okay to use multiples once in a while, but we really can hear you when you just use one. By using them so dramatically, it appears you are trying to shove your views down our throats, rather than justify your position(s) through logic, calmness, respect, reasonableness and good-faith. It's just not polite and the group has made it clear they do not appreciate the behavior.
Now, may we resume concentrating on the three History Section Proposals on the table? 69.173.135.114 03:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Thank you. MilesD.
Another Option - Remove the article from Wikipedia
Jareth made the below comments:
Actually you've brought up a good point. Right now the only sources we have for the article are third-party and of increasingly dubious credibility. Perhaps this applies (from WP:V):
- Obscure topics
- Subjects that have never been written about by third-party published sources, or that have only been written about in sources of dubious credibility should not be included in Wikipedia. One of the reasons for this policy is the difficulty of verifying the information. As there are no reputable sources available, it would require original research, and Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. Insistence on verifiability is often sufficient to exclude such articles.
This would seem to suggest that the article might need to be seriously edited since the only source we currently have is the ARBA website which lists the breed standards. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)'
I am suggesting that the Shiloh Shepherd article be removed from Wikipedia as the topic appears to fall into the above category. There are no outside sources available to get compehensive, factual information from, other than personal websites which is deemed to be original research and POV. IMO, it is apparent that there will not be an agreement reached between the 2 groups. So, rather than continuing this fighting, would everyone agree to remove the article completely?
SandraSS
If information provided by Tina Barber (the acknowledged developer of these dogs) about the Shiloh Shepherd's origin, development, and history are not included, documented historical reports from original registry are not deemed as factual, and Shiloh registries and clubs are not put into proper context then I agree that the article should be removed completely. Trillhill 14:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
AMEN —the preceding unsigned comment is by Tina M. Barber (talk • contribs)
I agree. Michael Kerr —the preceding unsigned comment is by 67.39.140.182 (talk • contribs)
Gloria replies: That's odd. TB just posted on another forum saying that she was blocked from posting here and needed someone to step in and try to get us all blocked. Then of course, after they did that, they were to post here in agreement with Sandra's post. Hmmmmm.......NobleAcres 16:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Gloria
- Alright, let me see if I can help out with some third party sources. I'll be updating the article to include the references shortly. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] And by the way, noone said that her information on the history of the breed and its development are in question, she would be considered the expert in that area. This concerns her portrayal of the other registries. It appears that Tina has carried on this campaign on more than just Wikipedia [9] .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I find it sad that Wikipedia would find that the ISSR and Tina Barber's information a credible reference for inclusion. After all, she is the breed founder. Who better to get information from? Also, she does have a point about protecting her life's work.
Since Wikipedia does not find her information credible, please remove any reference of Shiloh Shepherds from this website. It would appear that the Wiki is not the place for factual information in this breed in developement, the Shiloh Shepherd. Tony Matzke 15:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)ISSR Shiloh Shepherd Ambassador
I agree that if the information provided by Tina Barber (the breed founder) about the Shiloh's origin etc. are not included, the article should be removed. --207.69.139.145 14:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Gail Neff
Article removal
How sad but typical.If the ISSR/SSDCA groups can not control everything as they do on their fully moderated, spoon fed e-groups, and self written web pages they want it to all go away. Well there are third party articles out there, not everything should come from Ms Barber as through out time she has proven to be extremely hostile to anyone not giving her their blind devotion. We have all seen her recent post to her e-group trying to get her "supporters" to come here. Yes we have seen her posts which are not asking people to come and share their opinions, rather sending just a link to the disagree section of the straw poll section and telling them what to say. For over a week there have been like 7 posts virtually begging the readers to come here and only say they support all of her points. She has referred to these discussions as "war" rather than an adult discussion trying to come to a mutual agreement. It is a real shame how some poeple when not receiving their way resort to attacks, and call it a war. That is not how mature adults solve a disagreement. For years now the non ISSR folks have been on the receiving end of vicious lies and threats. For the record, no matter how hard some may wish it, we are not going away, we just keep getting stronger. The bullying, threats and attacks used can no longer be accepted. This article should not just "go away" because Ms Barber can not get her own way. The Non ISSR group here has been very accommodating to most points of this article raised by Ms Barber. What will not happen is the acceptence of her attempts to write an article where she is diminishing the other groups with her falsehoods and negative connotations. ShenandoahShilohs
- I am in total agreement with the following statement..."If information provided by Tina Barber (the acknowledged developer of these dogs) about the Shiloh Shepherd's origin, development, and history are not included, documented historical reports from original registry are not deemed as factual, and Shiloh registries and clubs are not put into proper context then I agree that the article should be removed completely. "
- gp —the preceding unsigned comment is by 152.163.100.132 (talk • contribs)
I agree with SandraSS and Trillhill that the Shiloh Shepherd articles should be removed from Wikipedia. Obviously if information provided by the actual and only documented and recognized founder and continuing developer of the Shiloh Shepherd, Tina Barber, is not included and recognized as documented fact then the articles as they currently read are confusing and misleading to the public. It is sad that people who could be a welcome part of the true Shiloh Shepherd family which is ISSR/SSDCA seem simply unable or unwilling to follow the already established guidelines and rules carefully prescribed for the benefit of each dog in the continuing development of the true Shiloh Shepherd. The ISSR/SSDCA rules and regulations are strict and exact with true concern for the integrity of the Shiloh Shepherd in mind. The people who appear to find the need to attack Tina Barber seem to be the same people who are unwilling to follow the rules as prescribed and then they set out to form new groups/registries to fit their own needs. Tina Barber is extremely generous with her time and knowledge with sincere people who are truly committed to the welfare of the Shiloh Shepherd as a developing breed. Her records of years of careful development of the Shiloh Shepherd are documented and are available proof. I have said before that I suppose anyone who has a mind to do so can set out to develope a new breed of dog, cat or whatever, but then they should not try to call it a Shiloh Shepherd because it simply won't be a true Shiloh Shepherd at all.
Nancy Tisci, TiAmo Desert Mountain Shilohs in AZ. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.139.220.205 (talk • contribs)
At this point, removing the article altogether is the best option(IMO). michelle johnson 1-5-06 —the preceding unsigned comment is by 66.21.156.244 (talk • contribs)
---I agree with ShenandoahShilohs. Reasons for removing this legitimate article are baloney" Miles 18:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)MilesD
- I urge that the article be kept. Surely, this group of adults can reach a constructive compromise that benefits Shilohs and the public. S Scott 21:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)S ScottS Scott 21:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Some Questions/Comments re: "...Remove the article..."
I think many contributors are well aware that Ms. Barber has made several appeals outside this forum, in her chat group, for members to come to this talk forum and "vote" for her position, saying they don't even need to post, just sign and say they agree with her points.
Considering this, and completely in agreement with Ms. Barber's constant assertions that we "always investigate before you invest" and "knowledge is power" (i.e. before simply signing "I agree"), I must therefore ask:
- "Have you researched what positions and arguments are being put forth in this discussion on the Shiloh Shepherd Dog Talk pages, prior to voting?
- Have you read ALL the posts/information contained in these Talk pages and in other resources (other than just Ms. Barber's own writings here and on her website), before deciding your position?
- Have you fairly and thoroughly researched both "sides" of this debate before reaching your conclusions?
The contributors representing the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA registries and the ISSDC club (the "slivers" as Ms. Barber refers to them) genuinely appreciate and anticipate your participation in this discussion. It is an opportunity for the free, open, respectful, logical dialogue/debate without censure, of "all" sides of the Shiloh Shepherd story, involving all participants in the Shiloh Shepherd breed. The more parties involved, the more informed we can all become and this can only be for the betterment of this breed...it's "all good".
Regardless of what you may have been told otherwise, many contributors to this discussion are responsible, caring individuals, and they respect, and feel no animosity towards you or the informed choices you make (i.e which Shiloh registry/club with which you choose to participate). Your choices, questions, views and opinions are valid, they DO matter and they are always welcomed.
It is for these reasons that
- these contributors have continued to strongly assert that:
- YOU DO have the right to make respectful and logical contributions to these Talk pages and form/pose YOUR own opinions, based on YOUR own research, based on YOUR right to freely question and discuss, based on FAIR and EQUAL presentation of all points of view, without "any" registry/club wanting you to do nothing more than just blindly say you agree with their points and sign your name. For if anyone were to ask this of you, it would clearly demonstrate a total lack of regard and respect for YOUR own intelligence and YOUR own ability to hear it all and then come to YOUR own conclusions.
- AND
- these contributors ask ONLY that YOU:
- Thoroughly "investigate" this entire discussion and expand your "knowledge" of the issues contained herein by reading completely through this Talk Page and its archives (which has been ongoing the past two months), ASK QUESTIONS, consider ALL points raised by both sides in this debate, research ALL sources of information (ISSR, NSBR, TSSR, SSBA) and then make up your OWN minds.
At that point, if you are comfortable becoming/remaining affiliated with the ISSR/SSDCA...your decision will be respected and accepted. If you wish to become affiliated with the NSBR, TSSR, SSBA...you will be welcomed respectfully by them. Most importantly, the choice will have truly been yours to make, having had ALL information available to you, to assist you in your decisions.
Contributors here are not "terrified" of Ms. Barber; they welcome the opportunity to debate with her in a forum where their voices cannot be controlled or censored. Contributors here do not wish for Ms. Barber to be "blocked" from participating in this discussion; they just want her to treat them with common courtesy and respect, to engage in dialogue and not simply lecture them, to reply to their questions/concerns, to apply logic and provide verification for her claims/positions. In fact, although she may have told you otherwise, Ms. Barber has never been blocked because of her views; she has only been blocked when she has been inapproprate, insulting or made threats to other contributors - feel free to confirm this through Wiki's block log: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block and/or with Jareth, our Moderator. Contributors here are not from the "dark side"; they too genuinely and responsibly love their Shilohs Shepherds and care about their future. Contributors here are not trying to "push" their issues/agenda; they are simply fighting for everyone's right to be heard and to be able to find the information they need in order to make their own decisions.
It is precisely for all of OUR RIGHTS (including YOURS), to freedom of speech and freedom of information, that many contributors are here "fighting" for in this "war"(as Ms. Barber has chosen to call it).
For, if you support silencing questioning/opposing voices today (in this article)what happens if you start asking questions or become the opposition tomorrow? Miles 18:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Thank you. MilesD.
p.s. We appreciate that many of you are first time visitors here and that the Wiki forum is not always the easiest to follow. It definitely requires some getting used to. Postings can be a bit tricky, and there's a bit of Wiki-ettiquette to be observed. To help see where the conversation has gone over the past two months (granted some of the inital posts were deleted by the editors after personal attack) can be read by following these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog/Archive_1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog/Archive_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog/Archive_3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog
Many of the points made are still open for discussion. Many have been discussed and hopefully after reading will make sense. If there is something that hasnt been discussed previously, or you have something to contribute to a previous topic, please feel free to jump in and take part in this continuing discussion.
Jareth is our appointed/volunteer mediator and has the difficult task of trying to help reach mutual resolve on this article. Jareth is neither judge nor jury, but a neutral unbiased voice in this continuing discussion.Miles 18:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Thanx. MilesD.