Talk:Bernese Mountain Dog

Bitches

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

Reliability.

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 The only data on that site that isn't a kennel club survey is more than three decades outdated.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

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

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

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

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

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 The Pullman data is at least two decades outdated and relies on survey data solely.

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include every single study under the sun in an article; what information is more useful to the reader, data that is outdated by more than two decades, or more recent data?

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

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

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

Linkrot does not make the source unreliable.

There are other sources.

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

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

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

>It's not about reliability

It does when it comes to giving weight to studies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This one would qualify:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're aware of it now. And you are WP:Edit warring. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I spent time researching for better sources and removing your additions which at times were erroneous and synthesis, you've gone ahead and reverted all of that and gone back to a version with unreliable sourcing, synthesis, and conclusions not supported by the sources.

You've done nothing to explain why your version is somehow better and have instead have just continuously reverted. I am taking it to WP:30 because you somehow still have no idea what a reliable source is despite your thousands of edits. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen I started a new discussion below for ease of access. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources (revisited)

A suspected cause is lack of genetic diversity {there is a lot of inbreeding, which has increased over the years).
These are peer-reviewed journals. So what is your issue? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

MDPI is known for having a very poor review process, said article was only cited twice elsewhere. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

You removed two sources, not one. MDPI is not cited. Journal of Heredity and Genes are and those are what you deleted. These are peer-reviewed journals. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The claim wasn't supported by the other citation. Genes is an MDPI journal, if you bothered to read your own link you'd know that. Traumnovelle (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Health section

Which version of the health section should be used? Revision 1227025660 or revision 1227256639. Comparison: [2]. Previous discussion can be seen above. 20:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It is a Longevity section, not a "Health section." I vote for the current version, #122725663. It better reflects facts and experience, in diversity of studies in many countries and opinions . More is more, and in this case it is also better. WP:Verifiability, not WP:Truth. 21:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

You didn't sign your comment properly. Your revision affects the health section too and it is part of the discussion. It presents all 'facts' as if they are of equal merit and due weight. Why is the opinion of a group of fanciers worth the same weight as a study with thousands of dogs? Per WP:V you cited, 'Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' How does the Bernese Mountain Dog Club of America, 2puppies.com, pullman.com, and a-z-animals.com even come close to that? It also states no original research, which you've done by comparing completely different studies to each other to come to conclusions not discussed by either study. Also that Arizona State University thesis isn't suitable for inclusion given it is not available to the public (unless it's published elsewhere). Traumnovelle (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. I signed it now. Yes. Many studies with understandable and relatable conclusions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I am asking you how those specific sources I mentioned meet WP:V. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I am replying. WP:Dead horse. You've been nattering about this for months.

cited source on Wikipedia is often a specific portion of text (such as a short article or a page in a book). But when editors discuss sources (for example, to debate their appropriateness or reliability) the word source has four related meanings:

The work itself (the article, book: "That book looks like a useful source for this article.") and works like it ("An obituary can be a useful biographical source", "A recent source is better than an old one")

The creator of the work (the writer, journalist: "What do we know about that source's reputation?") and people like them ("A medical researcher is a better source than a journalist for medical claims").

The publication (for example, the newspaper, journal, magazine: "That source covers the arts.") and publications like them ("A newspaper is not a reliable source for medical claims").

The publisher of the work (for example, Cambridge University Press: "That source publishes reference works.") and publishers like them ("An academic publisher is a good source of reference works").

All four can affect reliability.

Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for the purposes of Wikipedia is made available to the public in some form.[f] Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.

It was and is a subsection on Longevity which you have not addressed.

We need to wait for consensus. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm just going to take this to dispute resolution because there are serious competency issues if you think those websites meet WP:V Traumnovelle (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm waiting for consensus to jell her. Knock yourself out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

What? Traumnovelle (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at some of the sources as well as the edit on your sandbox @Traumnovelle. I feel like your version is stronger. I don't think the self reported kennel club surveys meet wiki's rules for sourcing, and the rest of the material that you've removed was veering into synthesis or NP:NOTEVERYTHING. I don't believe listing every little quote about this breed's myriad health concerns is particularly constructive and does not, as per wiki's general guiding policy, improve the article with its inclusion. Lostsandwich (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You might want to rethink your opinion, in light of the current version and sourcing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You definitely made it better by citing a-z-animals and Dogster (a circular site that copies Wikipedia). The only other change you did was use the Klopfenstein study to support the two decade old studies.

Those studies still suffer from being undue because of the fact they are older and have smaller sample sizes, the Danish study only used 38 dogs for example. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion is only one. No consensus for what you say. WP:Edit warring. Stop it! Ipse dixit doesn't apply here. Sorry you don't like rhe conclusions of the studies, but they exist. WP:Verirfiability not WP:Truth. 12:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Two people for it and one against isn't consensus? I don't dislike the conclusions of the study: it's that it's simply undue to include information from 1996 when more recent information exists. Oh and that you obviously did not read a German language non-digitised article. That essay isn't policy and actual policies such as WP:VNOT. Traumnovelle (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Nope. See, Wikipedia:Consensus. And your argument about link rot merely shows your lack of understanding about Wikipedia policy. Doesn't make the sources unreliable. Since you are a new editor, I WP:AGF.

You are cherry picking the studies. You removed Urfer, Sylvan R.; Kaeberlein, Matt; Promislow, Daniel E. L.; Creevy, Kate E. (2020). "Lifespan of companion dogs seen in three independent primary care veterinary clinics in the United States". Canine Genetics and Epidemiology. 7 (7). Springer Science: 7. doi:10.1186/s40575-020-00086-8. PMC 7386164. PMID 32835231., which is current and offers a pertinent observation and explanation. The older studies, however, do not become unreliable due to age. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Where in WP:CONSENSUS does it state '7&6=thirteen is always right and we must rely on his versions until he's finally decided otherwise'?

>And your argument about link rot merely shows your lack of understanding about Wikipedia policy

Link rot? The study isn't available online at all, it never was, you've never read it.

> which is current and offers a pertinent observation and explanation. The older studies, however, do not become unreliable due to age

It characterises them into weird groups, to include this study only on the page of the Bernese Mountain Dog is NPOV, to assume that the Bernese Mountain Dog is the reason for the low life expectancy of the group (it probably is) is OR. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

There is currently consensus against your version. You could've engaged in DRN, you can go ask on another noticeboard, but for now, there is consensus against your version being used. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I got rid of the NBC citation. I did read it at the time, but you win. It's cumulative in any event.
There is no "synthesis. I deleted the template.
The studies are all there, and accurately reported. I reorganized them so they are chronological.
This isn't about 'winning.' You don't get it. Where is it written that Traumnovelle is final? There is no "consensus" and I rewrote it to accommodate your criticisms, so that we can do something more productive. Give it a rest. WP:Dead horse. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't have consensus for my changes despite having another user support it and only one oppose it, yet you have consensus for all of your changes despite no other user supporting them? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Our readers deserve full and complete accuracy. I am not anti-BMD. They are awesome and beautiful dogs, with a great temperament. But they are short-lived for a lot of reasons, Malignant histiocytosis among them. When Trooper was afflicted, the American Bernese Mountain Dog club offered free experimental treatment, which I declined. He had cancer everywhere, and good stewardship dictated that an 8 1/2 year old Berner (to the Oncologist — "the British club says they live 6 to 8 years. Do you have cure for that?") deserved better. I've been there and done that; my heart broke. Readers who are thinking about getting a dog of the breed will benefit if they know in advance the bargain they are making, since it is in the cards, regrettably. 13:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)