Talk:Kennel club

Which vs that

Sorry--I have to point out that 'which'->'that' is arbitray; is there a particular Wiki usage preference operating here? Quill 03:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to point out that which/that is not arbitrary ;-). Which is used for nonrestrictive clauses; that for restrictive clauses. Another way to say it is that a nonrestrictive clause provides extra info about something that is not necessary to identify the thing; restrictive clauses help to identify the thing. ("My hat, which is blue, is my favorite." (I have only one hat. You don't need to know its color to identify it.) "The hat that is blue is the least expensive of the ones for sale". (There are a bunch of hats and you need more info to know which is which.)) Refs: Chicago section 5.36; Strunk and White "That vs. Which". Unless it's arbitrary in, say, British English, in which case I'd definitely change it to match this style, if in the other case it doesn't matter. But most British stuff I've read follows the same usage. Elf | Talk 19:22, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now, now! Let me be more specific ;) You and I know enough to know that usage of 'that' vs. 'which' varies enough and has enough associated rules as to enable the erudite to make an argument for just about any usage. In the sentences in question, there is enough evidence of usage by writers of good repute to make the choice of 'which' or 'that' in these clauses a matter of personal preference rather than a hard-and-fast rule.

However, I know perfectly well that it is of no use arguing with what we used to call the 'dead grammarians' and many of us stubbornly follow Messrs. Strunk and White despite all logic or evidence of modern use (not a dig at you; I've been known to do it myself). For the record, though, from Merriam Webster's Collegiate, 10th ed.: "usage That, which: Although some handbooks say otherwise, that and which are both regularly used to introduce restrictive clauses in edited prose. Which is also used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses..."

No, no, be antagonistic, we all know that edit wars are the point of wikipedia anyway.

...OK, not really. So what does ol' Merriam know anyway? It also says there's such a word as irregardless!  ;-) Now, if it were *Noah*-- OK, a lot of people use which and that interchangably (obviously). It looks wrong to me. So if it's interchangeable to you and wrong to me and Mssrs S & W, then it still won't matter if I change it. Am I right, or what? Elf | Talk 03:06, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Really, Madam! No, now really! Allow that '...a lot of educated people use that and which interchangably' (at least in this instance) and I'll happily call a truce!

'Irregardless'?! Nay, not so! You sent me scurrying to the book first thing this morning--really--grammar on an empty stomach--it's not to be borne! Now let's have the complete truth--it's stated clearly that 'irregardless' is an incorrect word, and one is to use 'regardless' instead.

You're quite correct on this point: if the use is interchangable it does not matter which one is used, which is why you should have left it alone and why (you will notice) I did not change it back (big of me, wasn't it?). In all seriousness, my only motive in questioning was to find out why the edit had been made, as it looked fine to me.

By the by, a wikipedian who shall remain nameless (but whose initials read like a fairy-creature) let 'pre-existing condition' pass in another article, which I suppose is an 'existing condition' to the Wikipedian gramatically-challenged.

Just for my own edification--do you follow the School of the Dead Grammarians on everything? Messrs. S&W have gotten me into more than one argument, so I'm just wondering how you manage...? I remember a particularly nasty incident where a boss insisted that I change 'composed of' to 'comprised of'--insisted, mind you--and I could not have been more right. I swore that one day I'd be in a position where no one would be able to do that to me again....but I'm over it now...no, really, I'm fine...I am....

Quill 22:49, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion continued on User talk:Quill. Elf | Talk 01:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kennel Club definition, years later

Maybe no one is interested anymore but ...

Things have changed and are changing even faster, breed registry-wise, due to the internet. Anyone with a few bucks a month to spend on web space and rudimentary knowlege of HTML can create their own "breed club" or even "breed registry". I've found on internet webmaster sites people looking for advice in setting up such registries, mostly to sell nice looking certificates to puppy-mill producers or pet shops. There's money in it. In addition there are other privately owned registry businesses, often ones that have adopted the acronym of a well known kennel club as their own, which exist primarily to dodge the rules of the oldest and best-known registries. So should all of these start-ups be listed on Wikipedia? After all, "everyone knows" that the Kennel Club (UK), the Fédération Cynologique Internationale and its members, the Canadian Kennel Club, the American Kennel Club, etc. are "only in it for the money" (I'm being sarcastic, but that's an important belief for some.) So why not list every internet startup puppy mill paper producer as a Kennel Club too?

The alternative is to make some sort of distinction between credible and non-credible KCs. Is that even a remote possibility? --Hafwyn (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

References, please

Hi, everyone. I'm trying to tackle a dog-related page where references are critical, one that links to this page. And then I noticed that this article doesn't have any. I don't know a lot about this field or I'd try to tackle it myself, but it would really be appreciated if some knowledgeable people could reference this article. Thank you. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 02:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Pedigree dogs

There should be a mention in the history section that:

1. Prior to the rise of "dog fancy" amongst the Victorians, dogs were primarily bred in Europe for function, as work dogs, by the lower/working class.
2. But since the rise of dog fancy amongst the upper class and the creation of organizations like the Kennel club, which track/regulate dog pedigrees, the main purpose of dog breeding and pedigree dogs has turned towards aesthetics and fashion.
3. In fact, during this period, Europe saw a dramatic increase in the number of recognized dog breeds, and the appearance of dogs became simultaneously much more diverse and bizarre.
4. Breed standards produced by the Kennel club and the conformation shows put on by the clubs have perpetuated this trend of emphasizing aesthetics over function, and over time the bizarre appearance of these pedigree breeds have gradually evolved to become ever more extreme (to the point that the current breed owners would not even recognize the original breed standard established decades ago).
5. This has actually created a problem such that many pedigree dog breeds are much more prone to congenital illnesses due to the deformities/mutations breeders have selected for over the decades to achieve more extreme looks. Such congenital illnesses include blindness, breathing problems (especially in flat-faced breeds that have very deformed palates) and seizures (particularly in "miniature" dogs that have very small braincases constricting the brain).

I wouldn't go so far as to call all pedigree dogs "mutants" but many of the award-winning show dogs often are extremely unhealthy (cannot walk right, are half-blind, etc.), and the fact that Kennel Clubs continue to maintain this single-minded obsession with aesthetics has created a very dangerous culture and mentality amongst dog fancy & competitive dog breeding circles, causing many thousands of dogs to suffer and die needlessly. This problem has progressed to the point that certain breeds have developed an unnatural gait due to deformities in their legs limiting their mobility, and this characteristic gait is even actively selected for and encouraged at shows.

If you want more detailed info about this information, the BBC produced a very good expose on the Kennel Club and pedigree breed standards called Pedigree Dogs Exposed, which aired on BBC One--Subversive Sound (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"....founded on the principles of Eugenics..."

I know this is citable to reliable sources that are against the creation of purebred dogs: they were founded on the proto-Nazi philosophy of eugenics. But that's not really fair. Surely, if eugenics is evil it's because you are breeding humans as if they were domesticated animals, not because it's evil to breed domesticated animals like domesticated animals. People had been carefully breeding domesticated animals for a very long time before the eugenics movement, and cattlemen and such had no need of the eugenics movement to teach them that you take the best and breed them with the best and you get a better animal, and it's good to keep records and breed animals carefully. At the very least let us set the comment off the wordings with the ways that kennel clubs describe the purpose and ideals they were founded on. Actually, or maybe we just delete the statement about eugenics. Chrisrus (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)