Talk:Sheep/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial message

Anyone interested in improving the content of the agricultural information on Wikipedia, here is your opportunity. Livestock has been nominated as a Collaboration of the Week. H2O 23:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Breeding behavior

Rams will regularly fight even when there are no females about. Their fights are usually fairly determined occasionally involving up to three rams and will last one of them quits. I have not seen sheep blindfolded because of their behaviour. In Australasia the "rut" is not used and is known as joining or mating. Cgoodwin (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Food

Could somebody please add Wensleydale cheese in the list of well known sheep cheeses?

an informative link would be http://www.wensleydale.co.uk/ewesmilkwensley.html Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewebcat (talk • contribs) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well known to whom? There are very few Wensleydale breeders in the US and even less Wensleydale cheese makers. The link is to a commericial site which would be biased. Any links to third-party sites would be beneficial to your statement. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Life Expectancy?

What is the average life expectancy of sheep? Can someone add that?

65.29.40.220 15:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

moufflon or urial?

The introductory paragraph gives the urial as the most likely ancestor. The subsequent paragraph on "Domestication of sheep" says this is unlikely, giving the moufflon as the ancestor. Can anyone resolve the contradiction?

Ferdinand Pienaar 08:44, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fat-tailed sheep?

In Pakistan there's a common domestic animal called a "fat-tailed sheep", which has, I believe, a different name in Urdu than an ordinary sheep. I think also varieties of sheep cultivated by early inhabitants of South Africa (already there when Dutch colonists arrived) were said to be "fat-tailed". What's the history of these animals?

Ferdinand Pienaar 08:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Information on this breed is now available on Fat-tailed_sheep —Preceding unsigned comment added by EverGreg (talk • contribs) 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming

From article:

"A ram or wether lamb, after being weaned, is called a hog, or hoggitt, tag, or pug, throughout the first year, or until it renew two teeth; the ewe, a ewe-lamb, ewe-tag, or pug. In the second year the wether takes the name of shear-hog, and has his first two renewed or broad teeth, or he is called a two-toothed tag or pug; the ewe is called a thaive, or two-toothed ewe tag, or pug. In the third year, a shear hog or four-toothed wether, a four-toothed ewe or thaive. The fourth year, a six-toothed wether or ewe. The fifth year, having eight broad teeth, they are said to be full-mouthed sheep. Their age also, particularly of the rams, is reckoned by the number of times they have been shorn, the first shearing taking place in the second year; a shearing, or one-shear, two-shear, &c. The term pug is, I believe, nearly become obsolete. In the north and in Scotland, ewe hogs are called dimonts, and in the west of England ram lambs are called pur lambs.

The ancient term tup, for a ram, is in full use. Crone still signifies an old ewe. Of crock, I know nothing of the etymology, and little more of the signification, only that the London butchers of the old school, and some few of the present, call Wiltshire sheep horned crocks. I believe crock mutton is a term of inferiority."

What is the source of this? I am suspicious of the strange first person statements. How many of this names are still in use and where? I have a suspicion that these are mainly British and Irish terms. Rmhermen 19:49, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

It's from http://gutenberg.teleglobe.net/1/0/0/7/10074/10074-8.txt Others have already asked this contributor to credit the source. I've also been slowly integrating the contributor's cut&paste from public domain texts into the article proper and crediting sources (e.g. snake and James Wolfe). Samw 22:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could we talk about sheep as "wollies"? The singular being "wooly". They are so soft and cuddly! ~

I've heard sheep being called woolies (or one wooly), in reference to the number of sheep to be shorn in one go (eg. "We have 5000 woolies for you this year") but not sure it's useful to the article. Donama 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

woolly ruminant quadrupeds

This is the best definition ever. I think this is what I will now forever call sheep. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 03:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure 'ruminant quadrepeds' is lifted from some book or other but I can't remember... --Kiand 00:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Closest thing I found to a book was a website called "Sciencedaily.com," which cited Wikipedia.com in its page about sheep, or "Woolly ruminant quadrupeds."
68.38.242.66 05:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

This should be a case of the ordinary meaning receiving the priority to the common name. In fact, the disambiguation page, Sheep (disambiguation) already exists. But now hundreds of incoming links go to a disambiguation page instead of to the correct article.----

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support. Turn this page into redirect to sheep, move disambiguation text onto existing disambiguation page. Rmhermen 04:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose (changed mind based on Jimfbleak's rationale) Donama 00:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, reversion of move inconsistent and unscientific, see my reasons below. jimfbleak 05:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. A move to inconsistency would be a bad thing in this case, but I do feel that 1) the sheep article could be improved by highlighting more strongly that it's not about domestic sheep (and that there is a difference), and 2) some sections in domestic sheep need to be moved to the parent article. The current arrangement works for me. -- Ian ≡ talk 07:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Right now I am fairly neutral beccause the person who moved most of "Sheep" to "Domestic Sheep" didn't detail the reasons but I assumed it is more correct scientifically to write about all sheep in "Sheep" and just the sheep as livestock in "Domestic sheep". I did quite a few manual relinking in pages directing to "Sheep" instead of "Domestic Sheep" already, but there are literally hundreds remaining and it would need bots to do the job properly. Donama 00:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The scientific rationale for the move is obvious; the article I moved was almost entirely about the domestic sheep, with other species being mentioned only in the context of listing relatives, and the ancestry of the domesticated form. The taxobox and conservation status was for one species, the domesticated form, not the sheep genus Ovis. I would agree that the genus article needs expanding, but that doesn't nullify the move.

Although the "common name" principle is a good one, ie sheep rather than Ovis, in cases like this overapplication leads to wooly (LOL) thinking. If you go to goat, turkey, pig, peafowl etc you get the genus article, with domestic goat, domesticated turkey, domestic pig, Indian Peafowl etc as links. AFAIK all the main domesticated animals have articles titled as domestic rabbit etc, unless they have unique names eg chicken, silkworm, honeybee.

There is also a difference in emphasis between what might be called the "biological" articles, and the "agricultural" one. For example, in the case of Turkey, the more scientific information on the two species of wild bird would sit uneasily with details on the domesticated form, especially of the Thanksgiving dinner variety.

I fixed a lot of the links, but the same problem arises there. Some, like the economy of... ones are clearly domestic sheep, others like ewe and the bluetongue disease articles are generic to sheep or bovids, and I left those pointing correctly to sheep.

I wont get into an edit war if these changes are reversed, but I do think that reverting will be inconsistent with other domestication-related articles, and an unecessary dumbing down, leading to confusion. At the very least a taxobox for sheep should be for the genus.

I suppose that the alternative would be to have the genus article at Ovis, rather than sheep, but this is against the common name principle and would also lead to much relinking. I don't know that if I were searching for information about sheep in general that I would start at Ovis, rather than Sheep?

jimfbleak 05:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. I find the precedent set by the other Wikipedia article's to be the most compelling consideration. Note, however, that there are still dozens of "economy of x", "y cheese" and sheep product articles that need the links changing (including any about wool and lamb (food)). Do you know how to make a bot to fix these? Donama 11:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm an IT moron - I'm not sure in any case that a bot could distinguish whether a particular item should go to sheep or domestic sheep, although I suppose it would be simpler to change them all to the latter, and fix the relatively few links to the generic article manually. Thanks for for your help with link-fixing, I know there are a lot left to do, but I don't want to invest lots of time in them at present until this issue is resolved. jimfbleak 12:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed notice as no consensus was reached to move it. Donama 23:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Black sheep

What causes the black sheeps color to be black? Is the skin of black sheep a different colour or is it just the wool? Any idea of the ratio of white sheep to black sheep? Rusty2005 15:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the race, there are just black or brown sheeps in some races. Other races prefer the white ones, because you can color the wool better, but they are always some black ones in every white flock, because its nature you are dealing with. There are, I think, also races with black and white spots like a black HF-cow!

It's just the wool, just like hair on people. There are black, reddish, grey or brown sheep in some breeds. Commercial production relies on sheep carefully bred to minimize the occurance of colored genes as the colored wool cannot be mixed into the normal product stream for white wool. So in commercial wool flocks the incidence will be virtually zero. Even meat flocks sell wool as a secondary product so colored wool is very rare. Specialty and heritage flocks will preserve the color variances in the breed but the wool is used in smaller (and separated) product streams, often using the natural colors and unusual breeds as selling points. Jacob sheep are a breed with multi-colored coats while Shetland sheep, perhaps have the widest range of colors. Rmhermen 16:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The skin is black under the black spot in wool, too, even on a mainly white Merino.Cgoodwin (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sheep Wool

Would a sheep's wool keep growing if it's not sheared? How to keep it warm after shearing?

Yes it does keep growing. A ram that evaded the annual muster in central Australia for more than four years had wool 24cm long. As you can imagine he'd have gotten pretty hot a lot of the time and had it pretty tough. They thought it was pretty amazing he was alive. In South Australia, shearing is normally done in September, October or November so the sheep don't have to worry so much about how to keep cool! — Donama

When a ruminant feels cold, its starts eating more, because the digestion makes a lot of temperature. So, after shearing, you should make sure, that your sheep has enough to eat. More dangerous is, that the sheep are getting to hot, so they stop eating at all.

While it may seem backward, some sheep do wear coats - but they wear them before shearing to keep the wool cleaner, not after shearing to keep warm. Rmhermen 16:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Also done as part of the bioclip (http://au.merial.com/bioclip/) system so that you can take the fleece off in one piece --Peripitus (Talk) 03:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Technique

OK, someone's added a section on how to have sex with sheep. I'm going to remove it but if anyone wants to include it they should probably put it in a different section (rather than right below the opening paragraph). --163.1.223.30 11:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be more than appropriate to skip that part. If anybody really want to include it, it should be in an article about whatever that sexual attraction is named.

physical characteristics

How big are sheep? I know they have a weight range, but what's an average weight or size? Horses are incredibly variable, from miniatures being two feet or less at the shoulder to giant types like Percherons. I assume there's some of the same variability in any animal domesticated for a long time, but still, there's nothing here that indicates how big they are, that I saw, at least. Deirdre 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Horse has a section called "Biology of the Horse" and cattle has a section called just "Biology". I may work on it latter today - but it is not as variable as horses. Rmhermen 22:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

gestation

How long does it take for a sheep to give birth? my kids would like to know. many thanks

"Sheep gestation usually runs from 145 to 153 days."[1] or about 5 months. Rmhermen 19:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do they only give birth in spring? Kisch 04:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking that is true. However, due to different breeds coming into heat at different times of the late summer and well into winter, sheep do give birth from winter well into late spring. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 09:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

sexuality

not sure if this is the right article, but something should be mentioned about sheep sexuality and ongoing research about it. --71.240.184.133 04:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the additions about the OHSU controversy bc it has been an international scandal. and I added the cites about the occurence of homosexuality in sheep, not bc I think we need to go around mentioning it in every of the hundreds of animals it has been observed in, but bc it has been closely studied in sheep. VanTucky 17:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is to present information in a responsible and non-offensive scholastic form rather than espousing an agenda or exciting irrelevant controversy. Children are exposed to posted information for the benefit of education in this case fundamental attributes of sheep. A forum to disgust debatable behavior; aberrant behavior and sexual behavior amongst humans or sheep is inappropriate in this arena. Let the sheep be the center of attention in such fields as Wikipedia online talk about "sheep" and not irrelevant and inappropriate sexual suppositions. The dispute is not about the information but rather the wisdom of posting such information in this forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellahvalley (talk • contribs) 04:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First, please remember to sign all talk posts with four tildes or the signature button. Second, Wikipedia is not censored, for taste or otherwise. Per Wikipedia' obvious disclaimers and adult content, children should not read it unmonitored. This is the plain and simple truth, and if you think you're going to change this, go ahead and try to delete Anal sex or Pearl necklace. It isn't gonna fly. To allude to homosexuality as "aberrant" is not exactly a neutral or civil thing. Consistent slurs about homosexuality may violate our policies on personal attacks and civility. I don't know what you're talking about with the bestiality nonsense, but the article has never contained a mention of it. However, treatment of the sexuality of sheep and any impact this may have on culture is relevant. VanTucky ^Talk 04:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Shoop

Does anyone belive this is a word? Should or shouldn't it be removed from here? Rboesen 15:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Neoteny

Are sheep neotenised animals? I was given to understand that most domesticated animals are. --62.136.24.91 18:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. VanTucky 17:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

images

I cleaned up the images in this article, it had far too many and often crowded things. I moved the merino pic to the economic importance section bc it seemed to fit as the largest commercial flock breed. Also, in cultural significance I added a pic of sheep near the Damascus gate of Jerusalem per the importance of sheep and shepherds in Judeo-christian texts. VanTucky 05:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds

I have two sheep sounds - I don't know if we want to use them so I'm sticking them here. Secretlondon 15:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Gender Name List

Can someone please add the Gender Name List I can remember that a female Sheep is a Ewe but the rest I can't find nor remember(JOBNED1 not currently loged in)

moths

Something keeps me awake at night: I wonder if sheep can get moths? I do know that some species of moths eats wool, (or rather their larvaes) but do they also lay their eggs in the sheep's wool when the wool is still on the sheep?

Some flies lay eggs on sheep, the larva burrow into the skin and flesh of the sheep. This illness is called myiasis. The Common Clothes Moth however, may not find the wool on a live sheep to be all that hospitable. The egg will first have to hatch, then the larva will eat for two months, then it will spend two more months in a cocoon. That's 4-5 months hanging on to an animal that walks and rolls around, are exposed to sunlight, changing temperatures and moisture and get their wool cut once a year. The moths' egg is securely fastened, but the larvae is adapted to dark, safe and non-moving surroundings, quite unlike that of a sheep. This is probably the reason why moth attacks are not one of the many illnesses of sheep. EverGreg (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Title

Should not the title of this article be 'domesticated sheep'? 'Domestic sheep' implies those kept as pets, perhaps. (Or at least the distinction should be made.) quota 20:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Glossary/terminology

I propose we move the glossary to Sheep husbandry. About half the terms are husbandry terms anyway, and it's an uncited eyesore here. I'm looking to get this article at least to GA-class, so I think both topically and practically-speaking it should be moved. VanTucky ^talk 00:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Many of the terms are indeed husbandry ones, but then again, many are more to do with the animal itself. If it was in sheep husbandry, would we not just have the same problem in the opposite direction. What about breaking it out into a separate article? As a separate article, the two other articles would have some basic terminology, with "Main article" tags. "Sheep terminology"?

I have reservations about some of the changes to the body of the terminology section. Dealing with each:

• Quite right that bold should not normally be used except for first occurrence of headword. However, its use in lists is one of a small number of exceptions: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Boldface. I've restored this.

• Non-IPA pronunciation. I agree, and I've put this in (my own laziness in the first place I'm afraid). I've left in a couple of the non-IPA ones in addition, for those unfamiliar with IPA (as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)#Other transcription systems permits). See what you think.

• Repeats of definitions given elsewhere. I see the logic for an ordinary section. However a glossary section ends up being complete – except for the most common and important terms (for example it would include the local term yow, but miss out the standard term ewe). If this was an ordinary section, I would agree with leaving out repeats, but my feeling is that in this case a complete glossary is more important than avoiding minor repetition. The repeated definitions do mostly include further information. I've restored them for the moment. User:Richard New Forest 23:19, 25 November 2007

Most of the other issues I can deal with, but retaining definitions given elsewhere, especially those that have their own articles, is not under any circumstances acceptable. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and articles are not meant to have define every special term they use. That is what links are for. Sheepdog and shepherd (for example) are terms that have their own article, and linking to those within the regular text is sufficient. Repeating terms, such as ewe, which are not esoteric and are clearly defined beforehand in the article is just clutter. This is the only major livestock article that has such a glossary, and there's good reason for it. What this article needs is more comprehensive, informative prose and less rambling lists. I will be removing the duplicate terms. VanTucky ^talk 02:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Forgot one point you made. Breaking off into a separate article would be fine, and thus including terms like those I objected to above wouldn't be an issue (obviously). Of course, my honest feeling is that such an article might be deleted as a violation of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY by someone. I think it might be defensible though, considering there really is a large and unique glossary of terms only referring to sheep. VanTucky ^talk 02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I do understand the argument about repeats, and I won't change it back without discussion. However, where does "not under any circumstances acceptable" come from? Is that WP style? If so, where is it explained? You have explained your reasoning, but I don't think you have yet shown that it overcomes the contrary. My concern is for people who have not necessarily read the whole of the article (or indeed all other related articles). How are they going to know that there is an article on herding dogs, and that it also covers sheepdogs? (Incidentally, "sheepdog" is not mentioned or linked elsewhere in the article.) How many people interested in sheep-related terms are really going to notice the only other link to shepherd – buried in the Old Testament bit of the Cultural Significance section? The way I see it is that the definitions in the first paragraph are a summary of what comes later – as they are for "lamb" and "mutton", which are defined again in the food section. In that case, leave out mutton from the intro and it is an incomplete summary, leave it out from the food section and it's thoroughly confusing. I think it works the same for the terminology section. Having said all that, if there is an agreed policy on the point I am of course happy to go along with it – but I'd like to read it first.

Pronunciation of "yow". Without including the rhyme, someone unfamiliar with IPA either has to go and look it up, or may go away thinking it rhymes with "low". Is this not exactly what Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)#Other transcription systems is talking about?

Quite right on the quotes/emphasis point. I've corrected one more.

Glossary pages appear to be well established (see Wikipedia:Lists#Types of lists), and even have their own category (Glossaries), with glossaries for such esoteric subjects as contract bridge and bagpipes (the latter is astonishingly long). A close parallel to sheep is Glossary of nautical terms.--Richard New Forest (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was saying that that is my opinion. Sorry for any confusion. The thing is, articles simply cannot take the time to make each section complete and independent. That would require an absurd amount of linking, as well as a lot of other repetition. If a word or subject isn't linked in that section (as to the sheepdog thing, I will definitely include it in my upcoming expansion) then we put enough trust in readers that they can search for it. Making each article stand alone when it comes to definitions of terms and subjects is not a goal of the project. The goal is to weave the web between subjects. But for the specifics within the article, the intro wouldn't be a summary if it included every major term. I just don't want to include words in the glossary that are either complete separate article topics (dogs, for instance, which isn't really a term referring to Ovis aries anyway. it's a sheep industry term) or words that are pretty commonplace and are defined before (ram, ewe). As to the glossary article issue...good research. It seems a new sheep glossary article would be in order. VanTucky ^talk 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's do that then.--Richard New Forest (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What do we call it? Just Sheep terminology? --Richard New Forest 20:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This section copied to Talk:Glossary of sheep husbandry. --Richard New Forest 19:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by Johnbod

I have reverted these edits for several reasons. I will go through each specifically.

1. You link to lamb of god instead of sacrificial lamb. Sacrificial lamb is its own article, and there is no reason to link to lamb of god when the identical link of agnus dei exists in the article.

Check your links - they are different articles. My links are the right ones.

Which do you mean are different? Because Angus Dei and lamb of god are the same. Even if they weren't the same link, they mean the same thing. Sacrificial lamb has a different, secular meaning as outlined in its article. It should be linked. VanTucky ^talk 08:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

They are different articles on different topics - have you acrtually loooked at them? If you want to write something relevant to sacrificial lamb, then by all means link to it.

Oh, they are technically different articles. The reason I confused them is that they have virtually identical content. Sacrificial lamb imo begs more linking, but I'm willing to let it go. VanTucky ^talk 09:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

One is about a specific prayer, and the other about the theological concept (capable of much expansion). They seem pretty different to me, & clearly here should link to Lamb of God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 10:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

1. You made a controversial claim about sheep behavior in Wales with a reliable source. Saying "An aspect of the story generally disceetly overlooked in the inevitable wide press coverage" through personal anecdote is not a reliable citation. Such an assertion needs proper verification.

It is not at all "controversial" - it happens rather regularly, as the Independent points out here. The incident I was particularly thinking of (at Betws-y-Coed - I used to keep the cutting) was before the reach of online articles.

Well, if you have a cite, then feel free to add it. I wouldn't have removed it if you had provided a verification in the first place. All you included in the ref tag was a personal statement. The link is not a full article, and there's no mention of sheep culling in the abstract. AGF isn't something that stretches to factual accuracy. You need to provide a source that clearly supports the claim you inserted. VanTucky ^talk 08:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Add a cite tag then. Perhaps someone who actually knows about sheep will happen on the article.

Please do not be rude. The rule of thumb as laid out in policy (can't remember whether it's RS or V) says that fact tagging is for info without cites that is unlikely to cause harm. Making a very controversial claim about the culling practices of shepherds without a supporting cite is not okay to leave in. If it's verifiable, then I'm more than glad to include it. But saying sheep are killed in that way without supporting evidence is unacceptable. VanTucky ^talk 09:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What is "controversial", that they do it or that they get slaughtered early? Why should either be so? Is the Yorkshire case really likely to be a unique case? If this is what you are saying, that really is controversial. Since the behaviour is learnt within one flock, obviously it would spread to others, especially at market, causing chaos. It is not "shepherds", it is (in the UK) the ministry who insist on this. All sheep in the UK are now effectively raised for meat alone (the wool is sometimes thrown away), as I hope your article says somewhere, so "culling" is hardly the appropriate term.

So far, the only evidence you have provided to prove that this actually happens at all is your own word. I have not heard or read about this in the half-dozen or more extensive sources I've had access to about sheep in rewriting this article, so it sounds dubious to me. If you can provide some kind of verification in reliable, published sources I don't have a problem. But basing it on your personal experience without verification is not acceptable. VanTucky ^talk 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

1. You made an assertion about etymology without a specified source. Generally citing all of the OED is not good enough.

Obviously, in reference to a particular word or words, the reference is to the OED entry for that word or words. Normal practice.

Just linking "OED" in a ref is not normal practice in my experience. If you can't provide a clearer verification than that, I'll have to do my own research to confirm what you're asserting etymologically. VanTucky ^talk 08:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend looking in the OED.

I'll take that as a no to my request for specific verification then. As you well know, the OED is huge. Combing through it to look for where your claim is verified is not necessary, if you would be so kind as to provide a clear place within the text it is verified. That kind of specification is part of decent citations. VanTucky ^talk 09:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be an idiot. Per above, for mutton, look under mutton, beef under beef ... get the picture?

1. You made a claim about meat consumption in a specific region without a reliable source.

In general, inserting personal opinion like that is not okay. Please provide better verification of facts in the future.

Just because it is unreferenced does not mean it is personal opinion. Which claim do you mean? You have (very lazily) reverted all my changes, without even going to cite tags, including several you can hardly disagree with. I think a reminder of WP:OWN is called for.

First off, we can speak on content with having to make angry accusations right off the bat. If you check the history, several editors other than myself have made significant contributions recently without me reverting, one even at my invitation. That hardly denotes an ownership issue. As to the other accusation, I did read the ref contents you provided, as I address their contents above twice. And I do disagree with some of the changes, which is why I outlined it specifically here. Of course. VanTucky ^talk 08:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice you don't address my points here at all. What claim are you talking about?

I'm mostly talking about the Welsh issue, that I quote above. That was what you provided as "verification" of the claim. Since it isn't linked to any reliable, published source, I can only assume that that assessment of the situation was your opinion. If it isn't, I'd be happy to include the content if you can provide a published source clearly supporting it.VanTucky ^talk 09:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You've lost me, I'm afraid. So you don't have a problem with all the other stuff you reverted?

Yes, I do have a problem with the other things, which is why I reverted them. As I say above, feel free to change the linking in Cultural significance like you wanted, you're right there. Other than that, I am not satisfied per the above. VanTucky ^talk 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Per what above? You reverted a number of points you have not touched on in your "discussion". Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Replies by Johnbod (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If I missed something, please point it out. Still not addressed fully here: your claim about the effective difference between lamb and mutton consumption in the U.K. You have not provided a reference to back that up. Second, the discussion above about citing just "the OED" for etymology without giving specifics in a huge work. Assuming readers know where to look in the OED is not good verification. You and I might, but readers looking for accurate info need specific cites. Lastly, and of the most concern, your additions to the "cattle grid" bit, which you have not supported with a reliable, published source. VanTucky ^talk 18:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed the OED point twice in very emphatic terms. I really don't know what more to say. It is you who have not addressed at all several other points - you have just reverted, without yet stating any objections in all these exchanges. You are clearly attached to defending your own version regardless. Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you're obviously intractable on the OED thing. So be it. I'll fix it myself with a proper citation. But as to the other two issues I specifically name, I cannot be more clear than this: you have not provided citations to reliable published sources. That's all I'm asking. Please provide sources that clearly verify what you're asserting. You're smart and you're not a newbie. You know that verification is the test for inclusion of material. So, please provide citations for the things you added to the As food section and the bit about sheep rolling over cattle grids. Otherwise they aren't kosher. VanTucky ^talk 19:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict - further brief replies. Johnbod (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

and more. Johnbod (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Break

Please can we keep this respectful. It is not helpful or appropriate to say "idiot", or "I've said it ten times", however frustrated we might feel. Makes us look like kids in the playground. We are all on the same side here.

Can we have comments and replies in order, or at least each signed please – I find it hard to disentangle the voices when they're muddled up, and can't keep track of the indents. Perhaps make sub-sections?

Now for my own views on the points raised, for what they are worth.

OED citation: Can't see the problem with a full citation (with edition), and yes, I think the individual entries do have to be listed, as such info is not always under "obvious" entries. As I happen to have a copy of the full OED I'll have a go at this (for a start, if I recall correctly, the origin of "mutton" is Anglo-Norman, not French as such).

Lamb of god etc. Don't know, don't care, I'm afraid. Not my superstition...

Rolling on cattle grids. I have heard of this, in south Wales many years ago. All I've seen for myself is ewes and lambs tippy-toeing across them, and also finding my own bulling heifer on the dual carriageway (three times the same day, though I still don't know how she did it). A friend's cob just jumps them at a gallop... However, I've never seen unequivocal proof of the rolling theory. I note that even the BBC item does not include a photo showing the actual method, and the quote is from an obviously partial person who does not say they've seen it themselves. I suspect it may be an imaginative folk-explanation for something more straightforward. I do know (from speaking to shepherds) that sheep with difficult habits are often drafted out of the flock – perhaps to slaughter, but perhaps more likely to better-fenced land. I'm not quite sure how sheep could learn such habits from each other "at market" – they may be cleverer than their reputation, but I don't think they can talk! And I can't believe the Min of Ag (or whatever they're called this month) would "insist" such a flock was culled – nor am I aware of a law which could allow them to do so. Anyway, very many sheep in Britain are not contained by cattle grids but just by fences, so there's no shortage of other places they could go. Overall I think this remains in the category of possible, but unproven, and so needs citations. Could mention rolling as a theory or story, but not as fact.

Second-year lamb. I don't know about this – I must say I thought most was autumn lamb, but I could easily be wrong, and who knows what the Kiwis send us? Either way I think it does need a citation, which ought not to be too hard if it's true. How about sticking it in with a "fact" tag for the moment?

Sheep offal. Lamb's liver "considered inferior to calf's"? Who considers it? This is an opinion which is likely to vary person to person and culturally, and so needs clarification and citation (I prefer ox-liver myself). The charcuterie stuff seems uncontroversial though. --Richard New Forest (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A)Anglo-Norman is not a langauge "as such"; the OED for "Mutton" 1 says "Old French" (first Middle English use 1090, "Beef" 1 the same, first use ca. 1300.

B) The Betws-y-Coed incident (North Wales) was widely reported at the time, just like the Yorkshire one; but I don't have a reference - it could well be 20 years ago.

C) Your taste in liver must be very handy as ox-liver is about 1/10 the price of calves liver, as most people disagree, although I expect many cats share your view. I imagine you have trouble finding it in restaurants though? Johnbod (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That all sounds reasonable Richard. And thanks for the offer to work on the OED cite. But the problem I have with fact tagging of dubious additions is that it is so often a semi-permanent solution when it is supposed to be temporary. I'm considering nominating this for GA, and maybe eventually FA. Fact tags are a huge barrier to passing either of those, and I can't remedy them if they don't come from source material available to me. They may end up being requested to be removed anyway. I'd prefer to see things, especially the assertion of opinion (like you mention above as to offal), cited as soon as possible. Perhaps a short period with a fact tag can be agreed upon, and if someone doesn't present proper refs by then, then it shall be removed? VanTucky ^talk 00:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of background with sheep (raised a bottle lamb once, that's it), but as for this little edit war, my two bits is that the OED stuff is worth researching, as the mutton/sheep, beef/cattle, pork/hog thing is a genuine tidbit of historic interest. Not that I have time to do it. The rest of the controversial edits sound like unsourced POV to me, however, and I am a great believer that footnotes settle many an edit war. Sometimes a Fact tag that is monitored for a few days by the tagger is a more diplomatic way to go, and going for GA or FA is usually a process that takes a week or two, the average reviewer will put it on hold if there are objectionable bits. (Only GA nomination I ever had quick-failed happened to be quick failed by YOU, me laddie, but no hard feelings... (grin). Anyway, I think that VT and Richard are on the right track, and as a reader who wants to learn more about sheep, I really could not care less about what sheep in Wales allegedly do to escape confinement, unless sheep everywhere do it, which can be sourced. Given that I also don't care much for liver at all, I really don't care if sheep liver is inferior, either (grin)... Montanabw^(talk) 02:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Language. Old French, then, not French as such; Old Norman (including Anglo-Norman) was a dialect of this. Included in article.

Betws-y-Coed etc. "Widely reported" does not mean it happened, only that lots of people said it did. The same applies to British big cats, Nessie, flying saucers and whatnot. Rolling sheep may be a bit more likely than those, but until it's got solid evidence it doesn't matter how many people say they've heard of it. In fact I think one of the refs may actually be a counter-ref – the Independent article is saying it's a "silly season" story, and I think the implication is that it'd be reported whether (wether..?) it happened or not. My trouble with the rolling thing is that it doesn't seem to fit with sheep psychology or agility. If sheep are trying to get somewhere, they go head-first, placing their feet carefully. If they're lying down, the first thing they do is get up, clumsily (or sometimes not at all). I can't imagine a sheep lying down deliberately in order to go somewhere, nor being able to roll over reliably in the right direction without either getting beached as a riggwelter, or getting legs stuck in the grid. Also, I'm not sure that half a sheep's circumference would get them right across – I think they'd have to do more than one roll – and then what happens to their legs in the middle? All very doubtful, though admittedly an amusing image. I suspect that in fact these sheep were prosaically walking across (like the ones I've seen myself), but they did it when no-one was looking, and rolling makes a much better story for the silly season. Actually the ones I saw did not exactly walk, but scampered, lambs and all.

As a sheep breeder I feel compelled to comment on the stock grid crossings. I have seen sheep jump them and also walk across the sides, but it would be unfeasable for them to roll across as they would become stuck. I have on occasions removed sheep from grids because they were incapable of getting out by themselves. This inclusion of this piece destroys credibility of much of the well written article. The financial supporters of Wikipedia deserve better. Cgoodwin (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, my ox-liver comes from my own oxen, or at any rate steers. The way our butchering works, I can't sell the offal with the rest of the animal, so it's a free treat for us (or a disappointment if the carcase comes back with the liver condemned from fluke). Tastes even better when it's your own steer, though I say it as oughtn't.

Tag with "fact", wait a week or two, then remove if not referenced. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? What's the rush?

--Richard New Forest (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Van Tucky reverts diff

I'm not going to continue with this, but if anyone interested in the accuracy of the article cares to pick up from the various bits of material block-reverted by Van Tucky, many not discussed above, the diff is here Johnbod (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I did think I'd covered all the points under dispute (and I was using that diff) – which ones do you think have been left out? --Richard New Forest (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Detailed terminology in lead

As the intro is supposed to be a "concise overview" (see WP:LEAD), I do not think it is appropriate to include more specific terms used for sheep. Hogget and weaner are not terms often heard outside the industry/farm, and will only confuse readers without an in-depth explanation (which would be inappropriate in an overview). This is why the Glossary of sheep husbandry is linked in the article, and the fact that innumerable other terms exist is made clear. Also, lamb, ewe and ram are universally used terms. Hogget and weaner are not. You almost never hear people in the States say hogget, and it's not used in U.S. sheep literature either - five major books I read published in the 21st century and Sheep! magazine do not use it with any regularity at all. I could be wrong here, but I doubt the everyday Briton or Australian would know the term w/o explanation as well. VanTucky ^talk 04:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm astounded that hogget was removed from the article, especially as the article redirects from there. The wool from these sheep is the most valuable wool available and is used in the highest quality suiting.

"Hogget wool comes from sheep twelve to fourteen months old that have not been previously shorn. The fibre is fine, soft resilient, and mature, and has tapered ends. Hogget wool is a very desirable grade of wool and, because of its strength, is used primarily for the warp yarns of fabrics." see http://www.textilelinks.com/author/rb/blterms.html

The point is that including the term is not an appropriate part of the contents of the lead section, which is supposed to be a concise overview of the article. This is why there is a link to the glossary. If you want to add a definition of hogget somewhere in the body with the referenced idea that hogget wool is the most valuable, that's perfectly fine with me. But including every term for sheep at a specific life stage in the lead is not in line with style guidelines in my view. VanTucky ^talk 18:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.csiro.au/news/ps2j7.html

http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/content/AAP/SL/BGH/FN1991_080.HTM

http://www.wormboss.com.au/LivePage.aspx?pageId=893

http://www.karori.com.au/index.pl?sitemenu=5

Cgoodwin (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Points in the hogget issue to consider are:

1 Australia and New Zealand are the world’s biggest producers of sheep and wool except for China.

2 China already has its own Wikipedia.

3 Hogget meat is sold in Australasia, ie that is Australia and New Zealand.

4 Hogget wool is the finest and most valuable wool.

5. I noticed that you have used the term tup at the same location. This term was not included in any of my extensive collection of books on sheep and wool production. Nor could I find it in EB, World Book or the Australian or NZ Encyclopedias. A web search yielded Tupperware and an assortment of articles unrelated to sheep, plus several that seem to indicate that the term is only used in IRE & ENG.

6. The existing sheep article did not contain or link to hoggets.

7. Five references to hogget were also provided for your information.

8. "Hogget" is commonly used in A'asia, but it is a very large industry with links to many nations. Cgoodwin (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, I must have missed tup in the lead in my hurry, that should be removed even more than hogget (you're absolutely right, it is a UK/Ireland specific term). But you seem to have completely ignored my primary reason for removing hogget and weaner from the lead, as well as not even addressing the inclusion of weaner. I already knew hogget was an important term, so you don't need to provide a bunch of refs. But having references is not an instant gateway to inclusion. There are also more detailed policies and guidelines than just WP:V and WP:RS. The section in which you want the word is the lead (or intro). The Manual of Style guidelines on the lead define it as a concise overview of the article, not an overview of the subject. A concise overview should not include a multiple word list for every specific term for young sheep. Lamb is far and away the most common internationally used term for young sheep, and should be the primary one included in an overview. Hogget is by comparison not a universally used term, and is used nowhere in the body of the article. If the term isn't used in the article it doesn't need definition, and if it isn't a good fit per lead guidelines, then it doesn't belong. Hogget is defined in the Glossary of sheep husbandry (or should be), and that suffices. VanTucky ^talk 07:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You haven't responded, but I'll elaborate in a more simple way. If we include very specific terms like hogget and weaner, there is no logical argument for preventing the inclusion of a full list of similar terms. To say hogget and weaner are more important than shearling, gimmer, gummer, teg, and other terms is not supported by evidence. So for the sake of brevity, which is a requirement of lead sections, only the single most common names for female, male and infant sheep can be included. It's a slippery slope otherwise. VanTucky ^talk 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Article length

At 72 kb, it may be time to split one section out into a separate article or simply place it in another. According to WP:SIZE, 60 kb is where an article should "probably" be split, and 100 is "almost certainly". I'm considering putting Flock management into Sheep husbandry, as the section doesn't actually speak on sheep. It's about how sheep are kept: i.e. sheep husbandry. Any objection? VanTucky ^talk 19:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There were no objections made, so I moved the section. This article is no 69 kb of length. VanTucky ^talk 21:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry, have alook at vampire...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still glad I moved it. It was off-topic a little bit, and the article is growing again. VanTucky ^talk 06:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead singular/plural

Erm, odd - why not singular all through lead? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking why sheep is used in both its plural and singular sense? Because that's how you use the word. There's no other way. It makes for odd reading to write a lead that refers to all sheep collectively at times and stay in singular form all the time as well. However, if you have an alternate version of the lead you want to propose, be my guest. The maxim is "be bold" for a reason. VanTucky ^talk 05:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, tricky come to think of it. Yes I am often bold but I can see this is an oeuvre in progress....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: Needs some form of etymology section...remember everything in lead needs to be in body somehwerecheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Calisber. The etymology stuff is covered in the In Europe subsection of History. I'd normally make it a separate section, but there isn't that much and the article is already 71 KiB long. VanTucky ^talk 06:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: Forgot to add the article is looking pretty darn good and romping home to FAC sometime soon I take it...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Polydactl sheep?

I just found this image of a seven legged lamb on Flickr! None of the sources I've read speak at length on genetic mutations such as this. Does anyone have anymore info? VanTucky ^talk 23:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be a case of an underdeveloped Siamese twin, or simply a genetic defect causing duplication of the limbs (though I'd wager the former is the more common case). -- 62.143.139.233 (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

GA

Overall, this is a great article. It's quite comprehensive, has very appropriate pictures and a ton of citations used correctly, and is very thorough. I'd say this is a GA very close to an A-class article. There were just a few things which don't impede with its GA status but should be fixed:

• The use of "a.k.a." in the "Breeds" section feels somewhat inappropriate to me. I think it is better rendered without the aka. Also, you have describing lowland in parentheses "(a.k.a. down)." I don't think that properly explains the lowland breed.
• In the "Breeds" section, I feel the sentence about fat-tailed sheep is better written as: "A sheep may also be of a fat-tailed breed, which is a type of dual-purpose sheep common in Africa and Asia with larger deposits of fat within its tail, or the meat from such a breed."
• Is it possible to cite the fact about the ban on sheep export to the Americas by Britain?
• The "Religion and folklore" section needs to have some more citations. For example, perhaps you could cite that fact about the Chinese Zodiac.

Overall, a fine read. bibliomaniac15 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Down is not a definition, it is an alternate name - hence the use of the phrase "also known as". If you can think of a better, just as short way to say aka, be my guest. But otherwise I see the alternative as being too wordy. I'll try and find an appropriate link for it. I'll fix the fat-tailed sentence, that's much better wording. Yes, I can cite the ban. I'll look for a cite for the Chinese zodiac traits and such, but I drew it from their article, not a book at my disposal, so it will take some time. Thanks for the review! VanTucky ^talk

Black Sheep?

Gosh - need to mention these in cultural depictions....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? There is "baa baa black sheep" and a mention of the term black sheep and its definition. VanTucky 20:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I just expanded the explanation of the term in Cultural significance. Also note that there is a mention of colored sheep in the second paragraph of Description. VanTucky 20:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Query flushing before conception increasing birth weight.

See discussion on this at Talk:Sheep husbandry--Richard New Forest (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sheep and alternative medicine

Storey's Guide, sitting right in front of me, says that a minority of sheep producers use alt medicine methods and find them effective. They cite everything from anecdote from producers to a University of North Carolina comparative study. If you dispute whether the treatments are truly effective, that's fine. I think adding a second bit about how the pubmed study found it to be ineffective is a good idea. But removing all mention of alt medicine for sheep in unacceptable. It is also unacceptable to discount the experience of real world sheep producers using these methods, as evidenced in the source material. It's a part of sheep health care that is notable enough to deserve mention in multiple sheep books, and in this article too. VanTucky 07:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I just read the pubmed study. It doesn't actually say that the methods are ineffective. It says that "Despite a few encouraging observational studies, the effectiveness of the homeopathic prevention or therapy of infections in veterinary medicine is not sufficiently supported by randomized and controlled trials." In other words, there is weak evidence to suggest it might be effective, but it hasn't been confirmed. That's not the same as saying they are ineffective. VanTucky 07:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What treatments are these? I can understand that perhaps some herbalist might stumble across an effective treatment from time to time, but homeopathy? That one stretches the imagination a bit far. I think the problem in the article right now is its lack of specificity makes it seem like any of the mentioned treatments are possibly effective when, most likely, controlled studies would find few are. This is a wording issue more than anything. I trust VanTucky's sources, so I ask him: is a strong statement on the efficacy of alt med treatments really that important for the article? I put an alternative wording in for your consideration. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The book lumps all three together in their phrasing, which is why I did. The one that was the subject of the UNC study that showed a statistical significance was herbalism and TCM but not homeopathy. VanTucky 07:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This page claims that alternative medicine, specifically naming homeopathy, has been proven to work for certain ailments, citing a book.

However, scientific literature disagrees, e.g. [2]. Now, you do occassionally get the odd study, statistical significance is defined as a 1 in 20 probability that the results happen by chance. So if twenty studies are done, you'd expect one in twenty to come up positive, particularly with low numbers of animals, which most of these studies use.

Publication bias then largely assures that the positive studies will be published somewhere.

This is why you need to check large-scale (with high number of animals), well-controlled, double-blind studies, and look at the literature as a whole. Frankly, I don't think these books have done that. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. But VanTucky's book is probably good for saying what sheepists believe. I'm providing a compromise rewrite to see if that flies. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to give you an idea of why you need to be skeptical, even when reading pubmed-indexed sources.... Pyramid power! Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, I love the word you just invented SP. "Sheepists" sounds vaguely evil :) I just revised it , and I added the cite you provided Adam. Check it out and let me know what you think, VanTucky 07:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked it over. It looked a bit too specific to me. The basic idea is that there is anecdotal evidence from the sheepists and skepticism from the journals. Wikipedia:Summary style and all. It's best not to get too hung up on holding fast-and-tight to individual sources lest we fall prey to WP:NPOV violations. The general idea is one I think we can all agree upon. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There is skepticism from one journal source provided so far. Unless you can provide multiple journal articles that have the same opinion, I don't think relying on the opinion of one article is enough to make that generalization. Plus, saying what the facts are (anecdote and observation vs. randomized trial) rather than simply opinion is better. Saying no trial has confirmed it is a lot more damning than the opinion of one article in a journal. VanTucky 07:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam's cite is only one example: it's not the definitive final word (as no journal article ever is). I'm sure we can drum up a lot of other citations. Perhaps entire books if you'd like, but I'm not sure that this is really all that necessary. Alt med is, obviously, a controversial subject and your books themselves admit to these methods being met with skepticism. The real issue I have is that the specificity about the trials lacks some of the subtlety that a scientist will immediately recognize but most others will completely miss. Since we really can't go on in an article about sheep explaining the problems with looking at observational studies versus randomized control studies, I think this kind of discussion is probably best excised. See below for more. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Issue with specificity to Adam's cite

Okay, so Adam's cite says that there have been a few (that's a carefully chosen word -- it means not very many) favorable observational studies but no randomized controlled studies on homeopathy. The problem with wording the article to say that there is positive evidence for efficacy from observation studies is that observational studies are statistically poor since priors and controls cannot be accounted for. Positive observational studies are seen everywhere. There was a study done where two different placeboes were tested in observational studies and it was found that you could get "encouraging" results no matter which one you chose to be the "effective" one. So, using this as a support for alt med is a bit misleading and not at all what I think the authors intended.

Besides this, the point is way too specific. The cite is only about homeopathy and not the other alt med techniques and really goes into detail that no reader is likely going to find useful. I can't imagine the guy who is going to come around saying, "Observational studies but not randomized control studies: imagine that!" It's just way to technical and iteratively irrelevant for an article on domestic sheep. I tend to like my summarizing statement better. It succinctly states the sheepist perspective and the scientific perspective without bogging us down in conceptual details beyond the scope of this article.

What say ye?

ScienceApologist (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I can see why the current version is best. Thanks for your input! VanTucky 08:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Traditional sheep medicine

There are many traditional treatments for sheep ailments – largely discredited, but interesting historically, and no doubt still used in many parts of the world. If we can have killing sheep with homeopathy, why not with eye-of-toad, wing-of-bat? I'm afraid I don't know of any sources though. --Richard New Forest (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'll look through my sources again, but I do distinctly remember a passage in Far From the Madding Crowd where a shepherd using some kind of bizarre device to relieve bloat. It's probably bogus, but it might be interesting nonetheless. VanTucky 10:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ref 25 in the Predation section

I'm having trouble opening this pdf, can anyone else give it a try? A broken ref isn't so great if we ever take this to FAC. Scratch that, it's just big so it takes a long time to load. VanTucky 19:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I don't really think this page needs to be protected. I looked at it history and there was only a little bit of vandilism and some blankings. Just wondering!Excitinginterception7 (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. The page is often protected because it is a regular target of vandalism, even if it's not concentrated. VanTucky 21:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AUD2.jpg

Image:AUD2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

length

This article is a mile too long. For example, let's look at cattle. the information on the cattle (cow) page is directly related to the beast itself and has a separate article on beef as food. even though lamb has a separate article on the meat of sheep, the sub-article in sheep "as food" should be merged into "lamb and mutton" or simply deleted. these are the first steps to shortening the page. any objections? Destroyer000 (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

disambiguation

The following links need a disambig:
afro-caribbean
browsing
faroese
fermentation
homogenous
hypoxia
itch mite
lamb chops
migratory
native american
overhead
tunisian
Randomblue (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC).
N.B. I'm quite surprised there are so many disambig for such a recent featured article.

There is no applicable disambig for itch mite. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the exact species. VanTucky 19:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the other links? Randomblue (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Chronological problem

How could Robert Bakewell (farmer), who died in 1795, be "influenced by the work of Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin"?? AnonMoos (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It should not say that. It's the exact opposite: Mendel and Darwin were influenced by Bakewell. I wonder what bozo (not you) switched that around in the FAC, several sources make the chronology quite plain... VanTucky 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Predation and protection

"More modern shepherds used guns, traps, and poisons to kill predators, causing significant decreases in predator populations. In the wake of the environmental and conservation movements, the use of these methods now usually falls under the purview of specially designated government agencies, rather than sheep producers."

Meseems it bears mentioning somewhere here that in many areas, local or (in the US) state law gives special provision for owners of animals considered "livestock", such as sheep, cows, chickens, et cetera, whether they be kept as livestock or not (for example, pygmy goats or bantom chickens raised as pets rather than livestock, but given that designation nevertheless due to the species they belong to), to kill any predator, no matter how endangered, if and only if the individual predatory animal in question represents a clear and obvious threat to the "livestock" population (such as a cougar that lives near stalks about a herd of cattle, or has already killed members of the heard). It shouldn't be too difficult to find a reference for that.

Though the reason for this has traditionally been to protect the livelihood of the livestock owner, one would think (though I'd imagine this would be much more difficult to find a reference for) that allowing predators to gorge themselves on pets and livestock would exert unwanted selective pressure on the predators in question, making them more specialized for and therefore to at least some degree dependent upon domestic prey and therefore human beings themselves, with potentially devistating effects on natural eco-systems. By contrast (and again, this would probably be difficult to find a reference for) killing only those individual predators (as opposed to whole populations or even species of predators, as was practiced in the past) that pose a significant threat to humans or domestic animals (I needn't remind anyone that human civilization is an invention of humans themselves, and that modern humans, having not been domesticated by some other species, must therefore be regarded as entirely wild animals and therefore an exception to the rule that only domestic animals be accorded such protection) should theoretically reduce the risk of such specialization and select for greater independence from human presence, despite what small, and if this sort of selective pressure affects aforesaid behavioral or mayhap even morphological (de-)specialization, temporary negative impact this might have on the size of wild populations.

Now I realize this is a lot of very general information probably belonging in another article entirely, but relevent enough that an abreviated summary and a link or two to (a) page(s) with more detailed information is, I think, warrented. --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]: Hammer of Thor ^talk 10:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I found in the source material. Generally speaking, U.S. laws forbid killing of protected predators except when the animals are caught in the act of attacking livestock. Mere proximity isn't enough cause for a non-governmental agent to use deadly force against protected species. Remember the article is supposed to be a general overview, but there's a reason the passage says "now usually". There are always exceptions to a rule, and sheep producers may simply ignore the law. VanTucky 20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oldest sheep

A trivia perhaps, but the article states the oldest sheep as being 20, while E. Straiton display a supposedly 27 year old ewe on page 89 of "Sheep ailments, recognition and treatment" ISBN 1-86126-397-x But of course, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. EverGreg (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, what year was the book published in? I ask because many older sheep books have glaring inaccuracies in them. Anyway, 20 is really meant to be the reasonable average top age. There have been a handful of people who lived until their 120's, but the article supposed to speak in general about sheep. I'll look around and see if I can corroborate some 20+ sheep. VanTucky 20:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It was published in 2001 (7th edition) but could have been carried on from earlier editions of course. In any case, there's probably no official guinness record for oldest sheep. Well-documented cases at best. EverGreg (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Does semi-protection actually do anything?

Over the past 2 days, this page has been vandalized or otherwise burdened with incorrect edits by anonymous users many times. The entire time, it's had a semi-protected mark on it, which says that editing by IP users is prevented. What's going on? Dvd Avins (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Recently there was a cartoon posted on the internet that caused fans to recreate what occured for laughs. Said cartoon is at http://www.weebls-stuff.com/wab/Gravy/ --Techokami (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Crafty sheep conquer cattle grids

Interesting that the article developed in April. Looks like someone has been taken as a fool. Grass growing through/or near the grid also indicates a spot where sheep could cross, too. Cgoodwin (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, dubious at best. And as for the BBC being a reliable resource, arent they the ones who write drivel like this:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4147801.stm as well as being involved in vandalism right here on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#Editing_of_Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugguyak (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think you're basing you're scepticism on a preconceived notion of what sheep can and cannot do, rather than the reliability of the BBC. It's got an editorial staff and fact checking, and that meets WP:RS. VanTucky 21:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

there are a lot of online references supporting the BBC article, including some from local papers where this is alleged to have occured. It's quirky, but I think true and interesting, so it should be included.Bob98133 (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(Is there some of this discussion elsewhere..? Also, didn't we have some discussion about it a few months back?)

There are a number of serious problems with this idea, and at present I do not think we can say any more than "it has been claimed by some" or some such weasel words. The BBC is generally very reliable, but their report of this is not, for several reasons:

• It is not a "proper" news story, but a rather light-hearted item which is primarily about sheep trespasses, rather than their methods of escape. The sheep-rolling is not the kind of fact I would have expected a local BBC reporter to have checked directly.
• The BBC do not present any direct evidence that it happened, they only report what a local councillor claims to have seen. This means that the report is actually hearsay – from a person who has a strong interest in the case. For example, it would only be a slight exaggeration for her to claim to have seen something reported to her by a constituent. We are not in fact relying on the BBC, but on a minor politician of unknown veracity. I've met a lot of local councillors, and they are certainly not a uniformly reliable bunch...
• The claimed phenomenon is contrary to ungulate behaviour. It is simply not the way sheep think. They can be very agile on their feet, but are clumsy when lying down. Because of this it is an extraordinary claim, and needs very good evidence indeed.
• As C Goodwin points out, the grid does not even look sheep-proof anyway...

To include this as a fact, we need much better, more direct evidence.--Richard New Forest (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Check out: [[3]]- this article allegedly quotes local people, talks about another security fence built to defeat escaping sheep. Bob98133 (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sheep can jump, cross at the sides and walk along wide bed logs beneath a grid, walk across shallow grids but they CANNOT ROLL across grids. It is physically impossible for sheep to do so. Was the woman drunk, blind, or was it dark?? Cgoodwin (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe all three! I agree that it sounds incredible but I'm constantly surprised at incredible things that turn out to be true. There is way too much media on this for it to be an April Fools joke. If nothing else, I think it should be included with a disclaimer of some sort.Bob98133 (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cgoodwin, you seem to basing your disagreement with the article on your personal experience with sheep. Any one person's experience with sheep does not contradict an article by a major international news organization which is describing a behavior which is plainly stated to be completely unique to one flock. It's being used in the article as a stand-alone example of the sometimes surprising craftyness and ability to learn of sheep, not as an example of a general behavioral trait. VanTucky 02:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not dispute the ability of sheep to learn only their physical abilities when on a regular grid. From another who queried the rolling ability:

"Widely reported" does not mean it happened, only that lots of people said it did. The same applies to British big cats, Nessie, Emmaville Panther, flying saucers and whatnot. Rolling sheep may be a bit more likely than those, but until it's got solid evidence it doesn't matter how many people say they've heard of it. In fact I think one of the refs may actually be a counter-ref – the Independent article is saying it's a "silly season" story, and I think the implication is that it'd be reported whether (wether..?) it happened or not.

The web is full of duplicated errors!! At the end of the day this statement puts a query on a well written article's accuracy. Cgoodwin (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right in one respect. Widely reported can be applied to aliens and such. But the key point you're missing is that on Wikipedia, we are here to enforce verifiability, not the truth. If a reliable source, like the BBC, says something happened, then we say that it did. If you find it dubious, we can attribute it to the BBC and let people judge whether they want to trust the source or not. But removing something you personally think is factually dubious based on personal experience when it's verified by decent sourcing is directly in contradiction with our core policies. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 04:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, the BBC is not a reliable source for this fact, it is only a reliable source for the existence of someone who says it happened. In this instance the BBC is not really a "major international news organisation" – this is a local story, done by a non-specialist local reporter. The important fact in the story is that sheep were getting into gardens etc; the sheep-rolling is just an amusing hook for the story. The reporter will have been careful to avoid libelling anyone (so for example they would not call the councillor a liar without solid evidence), but they would not check the sheep behaviour directly without further reason. Apart from anything else, such a reporter would not know the difference between a probably impossible sheep behaviour and any of the many other seemingly incomprehensible things that happen in the countryside. Like almost everyone nowadays, reporters are townies!

From the wording of the article it is perfectly clear that the BBC have not checked the rolling independently. If they had checked it, they would have certainly included other statements such as "we actually saw the sheep rolling", "we were shown video", "a sheep behaviour expert confirmed", "locals gather in crowds to watch the sheep rolling" or some such, any of which would be much more interesting than a mere "the councillor said she saw". The quote from the councillor is the only evidence actually offered, and it is therefore clear that it's the only evidence available. Effectively the BBC are saying "we were told this, judge for yourself". For that reason we cannot attribute the information to the BBC and judge for ourselves, we must judge the witness directly.

The BBC is not the primary source, and the primary source is not sufficiently reliable. --Richard New Forest (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This sheep story is sort of cute, but really not necessary for the article, since it's obviously the exception (assuming it ever happened). Since there is so much disagreement about it, I reverse my opinion and say we should leave it out of the article; at least until some reliable source is found for it, if that ever happens.Bob98133 (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This claim still does not have a reliable source, for the reasons I gave above. In this case both The Guardian and the BBC are reliable sources only for the fact that Ms Lindley says she saw it. She is not a reliable source, and as I said before, it is also clear that she is the only source. For all we know she is lying or exaggerating, or was hallucinating or simply mistaken. Until we do have a reliable source, this remains unsubstantiated hearsay for a behaviour which is, as CGoodwin says, entirely against the psychology of sheep. Sheep are not stupid animals, but is clear to anyone who knows anything practical about them that these animals must have just walked across, a common behaviour which I have seen myself.

The behaviour as currently stated should be removed from the article – the very most we can say on the present evidence is that "it is claimed that" or "some people believe that". Any contrary view must explain how Ms Linley is a reliable source. --Richard New Forest (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The basic fact of the matter is: your personal doubts about the truth of the matter have zero bearing on the contents of this article if they are verified by multiple reliable sources. As you well know, Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. Just because you find it implausible that something happened, doesn't mean squat. If multiple sources that meet our policy on what constitutes a reliable source say something occurred, then Wikipedia says so too. The Guardian and the BBC are long standing in their reliability, with a reputation for fact checking and a defined editorial structure in publishing. That clearly meets Wikipedia standards. We don't disregard reliable sources when they fail to fit within our personal opinions on a matter. We are a compendium of knowledge distilled from published sources, not individuals. Stop trying to cull information you find outlandish based solely on your personal sphere of experience with sheep. VanTucky 04:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Van – it's nothing to do with my personal doubts, personal experience or personal opinion. The only relevance of my personal experience (and that of CGoodwin) is that it helps make it obvious that this is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims need particularly good evidence, and this claim is not supported by a reliable source – you have still not explained how Ms Lindley is one. I am not challenging the reliability of the BBC or Guardian, which of course do indeed meet Wiki standards – but they are not sources for the behaviour itself. When any reliable source gives a direct report of the behaviour, then they would become reliable sources for that and I would be happy to see it included. (Very surprised, but happy.) Until then all we have sources for is the existence of Ms Linley's statement of what she says she saw. If that was all we needed, we'd be reporting alien abductions, cryptic animals, Elvis-still-alive and all sorts as fact. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. This sheep behavior is only extraordinary to you. I know nothing about sheep, so I am willing to believe the Guardian, BBC and many other sources. If this were a hoax, it would be widely reported as such. You seem to be claiming that reliable sources are only reliable if you agree with them. If you don't agree, then they are extraordinary. Instead of challenging a well-referenced item, why not find references that contradict this behaviour - maybe scientists who claim that sheep can't roll over, or whatever. If this behavior is as impossible as you suggest, it should be easily discredited.Bob98133 (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's just the point: it is not referenced, let alone well-referenced. It should be removed or tamed until a reference is found for the behaviour, rather than for the claim. It's not that I don't agree with it – there are many well-referenced facts which I might find surprising, and I'm always prepared to be educated. It's that it's a surprising claim with no real evidence to support it. I'd have no argument if the references were for the behaviour itself, however surprising. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:31, amended 18:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Th term for a cast sheep is as per Glossary of Sheep Husbandry: "Riggwelter – a sheep that has fallen onto its back and is unable to get up (usually because of the weight of its fleece)" but other causes may be lambing, a back downhill, or even a tussock making it difficult or impossible for the animal to regain its feet. The ewe in the photo was healthy and in good condition, but unable to regain her feet. Many sheep die if they are not found and put back onto their feet. As I said before sheep can cross grids but not by rolling over them. There are over 900,000 sheep around here and hundreds of grids, too, so I know a bit about both. It just seems a shame that fallacies such as this are perpetuatated in a article like this.Cgoodwin (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But saying no sheep could ever role, hence the BBC is unreliable requires a source. The quote above only gives a definition of a word for sheep that cannot, including reasons why they cannot, impplying that without these resons there would be no problem. Saying sheep have been reported to role is true and is sourced.Yobmod (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the statement that sheep have been reported to roll is true – but this is an article about what sheep do, not about what has been reported about them. It could accurately be included under sheep folklore, but not about sheep behaviour. And (yet again) the BBC is not the source for this, the quoted unreliable councillor is. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A former colleague (and current friend) of mine witnessed sheep rolling across a cattle grid at Elterwater in Cumbria, circa 1980/81. I believe his account; he had no reason to say otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.249.45 (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. Did he take any photographs, or publish an account? Richard New Forest (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have wached sheep role under fneces to get to the other side, and I have not been around very many sheep. this much I can say is true sheep are very agile and in the wild will walk on a narrow edge of rock along the side of a cliff which would prove difficult for a human to do, humans can quite easily walk across a cattle guard and it would not be outlandish for a sheep to walk striate across a cattle guard. as for rolling across this would take at least three revolutions of the sheeps body because a small cattle guard is 8'x12' and the sheep is about 2' around. E. Theodore Breedlove (Biological Science Technician) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.178.99 (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

When you say "roll under fences" do you mean crawl on their bellies? Sheep will often wriggle through small gaps under fences with their bellies on the ground, but always with their bodies right way up (if they rolled, I think their legs would tangle in the fence). The only way I've seen any ungulate go under a fence any other way up is when they've slipped or been pushed over, have slid under the fence on their side, then have stood up on the other side (I've seen this several times with foals and calves; not actually with sheep). I don't think they could do this maneouvre deliberately though. On one occasion the other side of the fence was a river, and we had to pull the 150 kg still upside-down struggling calf out by his legs, under the fence, before his head went under, while the other cattle continued to barge against the fence all around... Richard New Forest (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article

Please add the link {{Link FA|ca}}, just been awarded --Panotxa (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Australia and Mulesing

Having read "The practice of mulesing, in which skin is cut away from an animal's perineal area without anesthesia to prevent cases of flystrike, has been condemned widely as painful and unnecessary.[93] In response, a program of phasing out mulesing is currently being implemented,[94] New Zealand has already phased out the procedure.[95]" I personally feel that this is not 100% NPOV. There is no explanation of what exactly mulesing is, yet it is quick to say its painful (which I agree with, in a way) and "unnecessary" (have you ever seen a flyblown sheep, its not pretty). I believe that a quick explanation of why mulesing is necessary, beyond a passing mention. There should at least be a mention of why it's done. 220.240.36.206 (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a wikilink to mulesing which explains this pretty well. I don't disagree with what you say, but adding a lot more would be a diversion on this page since it is covered elsewhere. Since Australia wool growers have agreed to phase this out in a few years, I don't see how it could be necessary, except economically. Bob98133 (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it can't get too long, however the article in its present form only mentions the word "flystrike" once, without explaining it in any way, and then stating whats bad about mulesing. The problem with wikilinks is that someone doing a school project, for instance may not fully investigate information on other pages and make false assumptions. A quick mention of what flystrike is would help in this case. 220.240.130.51 (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made some changes to this section based on current practice. See discussion below, moved from Steven Wallings Talk page. On a second point, the second paragraph in this section is not even 10% NPOV. Will have a go at that one once I have the time to source some relevant references. Regards, 165.228.93.102 (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Graphic images

Outside of the fact that there are still way too many pictures on this article as it is, are the graphic images really that necessary? Do we really need to see a graphic picture of a mutilated sheep to get that coyotes attack sheep? Aren't there less graphic ways of getting the point across? AjaaniSherisu (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

First, there are not way too many pictures. You're literally the only person who has ever suggested this, including in FAC. Second, we're not censored for graphic sensitivity or taste. The best image to illustrate what predation of sheep looks like is an image of a sheep which has been preyed upon. So in other words, yes. It is really necessary. I'll fight tooth and nail to keep such images in the article, as I feel they are 100% vital to our educational mission here. Steven Walling (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

But wouldn't the picture of the sheep being attacked already be an illustration of that? Why is it necessary to show both those pictures? AjaaniSherisu (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it shows a feeding pattern typical of most canid predators on a domestic lamb, beleive me that is not very graphic at all considering sometimes coyotes feed on lambs by first evicerating them and feeding on the organs while the lamb is still alive. However if you still feel the image is too graphic for your tastes, I could replace it with this one that has not been fed upon:

Bugguyak (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sheep

Why have you reverted my edit on sheep? Do you believe that mulesing is undertaken solely without anaesthetic? This is not exclusive current practice, many operators are now using the Better Choices programme, www.betterchoices.com.au. It's strange to witness such an experienced wiki editor not do some basic research before reverting a good faith edit. I expect that you will change it back. Regards, 165.228.93.102 (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The sole test for inclusion of material in an article is verifiability, not truth. None of the reliable, secondary sources used in the article confirm that mulesing is performed with anesthetic. If you'd provide a reliable, secondary source, then I'd be happy to alter the article. Otherwise it should stay as it is. Steven Walling (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mulesing is not performed exclusively with anaesthetic or exclusively without. There are no reliable secondary sources in the article that state mulesing is performed exclusively without anaesthesia, so using those guidelines the qualification “without anaesthetic” should be removed from the article regardless. However, here’s an article that may meet your requirements. http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/general/pain-relief-from-man-to-lamb/13113.aspx Cheers, 139.130.142.164 (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

G'day Steve, just bumping this as you have not responded. Does the above linked document provide a reliable source for you to alter the article? If not, what further information do you think is required?

Both of the above comments come from the one person, despite the different IP addresses. Also, if you would like to move this thread to the Sheep talk page that would be good with me. Cheers, Tom. 165.228.93.102 (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a perfectly fine source. Thanks for tracking it down. You're more than welcome to edit the article again if you like, adding the source (just use the <ref> markup you can read more about in WP:CITE). But if you're not comfortable, I'll do it soon as I get a chance. Steven Walling (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The above was moved from Steven Walling's Talk page, as it is more relevant here. Regards, 165.228.93.102 (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Chapters 72-25

A reference presently numbered 76 says: "# ^ a b Pliny the Elder (AD 77), Naturalis Historia, pp. Chapters 72-25, <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137;query=chapter%3D%23397;layout=;loc=8.73>. Retrieved on 29 December 2007". Chapter 72-25 is probably a typo because 72 should come after 25, but what should it be? The url somehow appears only if you copy or edit the text, and it leads to something called "CHAP. 72. (47.)--SHEEP, AND THEIR PROPAGATION." Art LaPella (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look, but if my memory serves me it was meant to be chapters 72 to 75. Steven Walling (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Quoted prices for "(some of the) most valuable" sheep (nebulous)

Under breeds section, remove the (passive voice?) "Some of the most valuable sheep were Australian Merino" reference pointing to http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/wool/general/red-hot-national-merino-ram-sale/1256973.aspx . Quote doesn't really belong in a breed overview section unless the absolute maximum price ever paid for a sheep, perhaps, and that's a long way off compared with http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/oct/22/davidward2 for 2002, for example.

By all means, it might not hurt to have such a section discussing relative "values" of different breeds, pedigree rams, etc., explaining why in detail, but that rather jarred in a FA article when referring to a single sale where prices were demonstrably 10 times higher, 6 years before, in an easily obtained reference for a /different/ breed.

Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

re. revert; even at a casual glance for merinos only yields http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/livestock/sheep/buying-a-buddy-can-be-expensive/1225788.aspx for AU$20,000 for a half-share which is only the "most expensive ram in theory sold in Victoria so far this year" (double the quoted example). The UK price linked is equiv. to over AU$200,000 in 2002, thus (to reiterate), the sentence extracted is in poor context (and somewhat confusing/misleading) and does not I believe provide any "big picture" that's required in an *all-breeds* overview on a FA article. Cheers. Harami2000 (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't just remove an important section entirely if it's wrong, update it. The point is to state the most valuable sheep, so if what is there is wrong, then fix it. Don't just cut a chunk of important info out of the article. I'll be updating per the link you provided and some from the Farmer's Guardian. Steven Walling (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Heya... It's not a particularly "important section" in the context of the WP article, especially if it creates a false impression of "relative value" from the context by being dropped in casually in the middle of a section. I'm not sure there's a particular need to be any "record sale price" in every species overview on WP because that does somewhat border on trivia if added "randomly" rather than explaining in encyclopedic detail /why/ some breeds might be more valuable than others and then quantifying that. Under such circumstances it's easier to excise and discuss for later consideration (as I did). Harami2000 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

aside: re. the Guardian link and that £101,000 Swaledale: that article doesn't mention the £92,400 for a Texel only a few months earlier in 2002, per http://www.texel.co.uk/sales/2002/scot_national.php . That clearly notes "UK record" rather than worldwide and the good ol' Guinness Book of Records website ain't playing ball with that category to try to update to "worldwide, 2008". (Yes, I was checking elsewhere on-line and noting findings here, fwiw). However, those links are, all-told, pointing to a variety of breeds that /can/ have high $ but are generally found amongst the most "popular" commercial breeds (stating the obvious, but "true"). Harami2000 (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh... I missed the AU$450,000 in /1988/ Merino price on the article just linked, above; http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/livestock/sheep/buying-a-buddy-can-be-expensive/1225788.aspx being quoted as "world record". Since that was published in July 2008, it's probably "good to go" with a note re. "bubble" economy, even, if being encyclopedic (+with that Swaledale and Texel not overly far behind). Harami2000 (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Redundant?

Since a ruminant, by definition, is a mammal, then isn't it redundant to say "Domestic sheep (Ovis aries) are quadrupedal, ruminant mammals" ? --Igoldste (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Ruminants are a type of mammal, and it's in that sense that the phrase is used. It's not redundant in same way that saying "ungulates are hoofed mammals" isn't. It's important to state the obvious, especially in the lead. Steven Walling (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with stating the fact that thay are mammals, but your are wrong, All Ruminants are indeed "Mammals"

E. Theodore Breedlove (Biological Science Technician) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.178.99 (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually that was just what Steven did say: "Ruminants are a type of mammal". Richard New Forest (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Not all ruminants are mammals - see hoatzinKerani (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The hoatzin is a fore-gut fermenter, but it does not strictly ruminate (it does not cud, it only has one chamber). In any case we are really using "ruminant" here in its taxonomic sense, which restricts it to artiodactyl ruminants, in the same way as we'd call a panda a carnivore but not a whale. Richard New Forest (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Re

What really does not belong the the lead is "quadrupedal" when the ordinary "four-legged" would do, and do much better. Wikipedia should try not to sound like a pompous blowhard, or a struggling undergrad writing his first paper. 4.156.135.196 (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing pompous about the use of quadrupedal. It's a perfectly ordinary, widely-understood term, and in any case it's linked. We have a Simple Wikipedia for those who need it. Maedin\^talk 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"The Rare Breeds Survival Trust of the UK lists 25 native breeds as having only 3,000 registered animals"

In total, or per breed: presumably the latter? Neither figure is immediately obvious from the http://www.rbst.org.uk/watch-list/sheep.php link provided, anyhow, which lists 22 (native) breeds at "Minority" or below status. (The only obvious alt. source on http://www.tiho-hannover.de/einricht/zucht/eaap/breedlst/1_4total.htm is both out of date and requires trawling to obtain the actual number of animals, hence easier to ask here first... :) Harami2000 (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's 3000 per breed - the definition (per the numbers) can be found here. They've recently updated their listing of breeds from 25 to 22, and it needs to be fixed. Steven Walling (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Harami2000 (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Today, the sheep industry in the UK has diminished significantly"

I can't find anything to say that on the reference provided ( http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=15751 ) beyond future implied worries.

On the contrary, http://www.meatprocess.com/Industry-markets/Europe-s-sheep-population-declines implies a rebound to 2002 within the UK but it's impossible to reconcile that 24.8 million figure with the FAO's 35.8 million for 2004 currently in the article.

At present, anyhow, that sentence reads as though the UK industry has "diminished significantly" since the *1700s* (the only other date in the paragraph) which is almost certainly untrue; being pre-Clearances, for a start. Harami2000 (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Still requiring discussion/resolution on this one, please, per above note. :) Harami2000 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Another trait unique to sheep are (sic.) their wide variation in color"

I was going to copyedit this paragraph for short sentences but since that included extracting the above statement, which I doubt is "unique" to sheep (more so than cattle?), I'd better ask whether there's any evidence to support this first? Harami2000 (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol. It's unique to domestic sheep as compared to wild sheep species. Not other livestock, at all. That would be pretty silly to suggest. I'll try and make that clear, someone must have removed the word domestic in there at one point. Steven Walling (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! My copyedit would've resolved that (those are three /short/ sentences at present) even if it lost that extra emphasis required re. domestics vs wild (as with canines, say). As rewritten, however, I'm still unsure in what manner that's "unique" since you're comparing sheep with sheep, in effect. ;) Domestic sheep simply *have* a wider range of colorations (it's not "unique" as such). Harami2000 (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Never widely kept in intensive, confined operations?

Currently stated as "Sheep are one of the few livestock animals raised for meat today that have never been widely kept in an intensive, confined animal feeding operation" (this doesn't state indoor or outdoor?).

As that's a paper source, I can't get the precise context, but compare with http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12245&page=27 "THE U.S. LIVE SHEEP INDUSTRY 29 Productivity (lambs produced per 100 ewes) is much higher in the confined, intensive systems of the Midwest and East" (actually OCR'd from page 29 but doesn't load correctly there).

Midwest and East of the US sounds "wide" enough to me, combined with the "In the U.S., four companies produce 81 percent of cows, 73 percent of sheep, 57 percent of pigs and 50 percent of chickens" quote on Confined animal feeding operation as linked here which hints at that, even if not the actual number of farms?

Thanks, David. Harami2000 (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Those numbers are solely for the U.S., which is hardly even close to a world leader in sheep production. Besides, the "intensive" system used in those situations is not the same as CAFOs for chickens and pigs. Those animals live their whole lives in a CAFO, while the few lambs that are intensively mananged (i.e. mostly U.S. ones) are simply finished in a feedlot manner similar to cattle. Breeding flocks that produce lambs for feedlots are not primarily kept in CAFOs. Steven Walling (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The wording used contains "never" (generally not good practice unless absolutely sure) which is further confused by "widely kept" - Midwest and Eastern US is still no small area in farming terms, even if the numbers are not the largest in the world. The phrasing in the source sited is "confined, intensive" as in the article quote: it shouldn't matter than the systems have slight difference in detail and there is no further clarification within the article.

Are you sure there are no other examples worldwide? Ditto, the historical context, since that sentence as currently written is not time-framed.

Anyhow; checking here first, for obvious discussion reasons in this case. "... are rarely kept..." would be better, perhaps? Harami2000 (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've updated this from "never been widely" to "rarely been" as its been 5+ years without a response on this point. Please note at least for my purposes the edit is a grammatical concern rather than a factual one. The content is identical before and after the edit, however now the statement is less confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydubya93 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Patagonian nations

You couldn't just say Argentina and Chile? Srenker (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops; I spotted that one, but didn't recheck on the facts. :/

Brazil and Uruguay have about as many sheep as Argentina (wildly varying estimates depending on source) and only a minority of those in Argentina are actually in Patagonia - see first source. (sources; http://www.natlaw.com/pubs/sparcs1.htm , http://www.inta.gov.ar/bariloche/ssd/nqn/data/genetica/Ct-173.pdf - table 1, http://www.veterinaria.org/revistas/vetenfinf/bse/Scrapie_en/6ORIGIN.html , http://www.uco.es/grupos/cyted/3cardellino.pdf ).

Will change, thanks... Harami2000 (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding note re. http://www.populstat.info/Americas/americas.html as a good source for each country's sheep population in order to try to define the area. Even Bolivia has a sizeable number, relatively, so "south and central Southern America" would be about right, perhaps? Harami2000 (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I only thought "Patagonian" sounded hyperbolic, but so much the better if you're checking facts... Srenker (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article status?

Personally, I'd be inclined to put this article up for re-review. Any objections?

There have been various factual issues, etc., spotted since front page listing, the prose is woolly in places and would benefit from copyediting to improve cohesion: a few areas probably also require expert review. Following "Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so" procedures can only go so far, IMHO, and reading back through the FA review doesn't give the impression of rigorousness with a total of 5 support votes, only, several of which are glosses at best; with no peer review and rapid promotion via GA to FA.

Yes, I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into this but it neither fulfils the "Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information" nor "No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available" criteria in my book.

Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a complete review of FA status. You seem to be the only person with any significant suggestions for revision or objection. FAR is for a group collaborative review of the article, and it's not really appropriate if only one person is interested in an in-depth review. In other words, I think it's smarter to try and work out things you think need doing as we have been: through the normal collaborative process. Unless you've got some specific propositions for improving the content, I think it far from merits an FA review. Steven Walling (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Heya, Steven. The point being that an article should be of a given grade *before* that is awarded, rather than tinkering around afterwards in order to try to pull it up to that grade: university degrees are not awarded before the work is done! FA is the most rigorous standard available on WP and the fact that there are still whole sections requiring copyediting and various factual and other issues (some unanswered, some fundamental) requiring resolution in addition to those recently fixed are /very/ strong indicators, IMHO, that a thorough "second look through" is required.

The fact that I'm the "only person" making extensive observations, in addition to actual improvements to the article itself, should be neither here nor there. Some articles simply receive more "attention" than others and its easier "not to get involved", of course. Similarly, you're the only person who's objected thus far but I would expect objectors, if genuinely interested in WP quality, to take an active role in any reworking.

Personally, however, re-review (stepping back and checking again, formally) sounds like a better course of action as I don't think it's "smarter" to compromise on quality or due process merely to retain an article's FA status as a "badge". JM-02c, anyhow. Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was assured to be of a given grade before it was promoted. It didn't magically achieve FA without any review; some of the best FAC reviewers out there gave the article an in depth review before it passed FAC. Copyediting of any kind is not enough of a reason to merit an FAR, not even close. So far, you seem to be the only person who has even once suggested there were fundamental factual or style issues with the article. I don't think it merits FAR at all. Steven Walling (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Phrases such as "It didn't magically achieve FA" (take it on good faith that I know that) and, for example, the hairtrigger reversion without reading the comments on my first edit on the article read more as article "defensiveness" rather than striving to quality standards.

As noted, I have read the FA review for this article: there were five supports and one oppose with several of the supports being more of a gloss. This did not leave the impression that in-depth fact checking had taken place and the result appears to fall short of "Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information" and "No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available". That extensive copyediting appears to be required in several areas would also /appear/ to fall short of "Professional, outstanding", too. If any FAC reviewer might wish to observe/comment, that would be appreciated: I'm certainly not querying whether anyone's "best" or not, in all this. Harami2000 (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I strongly disagree with the assertion that the article needs so much copyediting that it isn't still among the best of Wikipedia. As you know, this is a core topic, one that's really expansive and not easy to write about. If it needs copyediting, then dive in and be bold. I'm really glad someone else has finally taken a very active interest in this article - thank you. But don't expect me to just roll over and accept edits I disagree with. Steven Walling (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for the feedback. Personally, I don't have any problem accepting edits I disagree with, so long as those are factual, believably sourced, not excessively POV-pushing, etc., and help make WP more "encyclopedic". I'm still unsure why FA status might be regarded as a "safe haven" (I'm probably going to ask around to check whether that's a systematic issue or just giving that "impression" in this case), but I presume you are happy that the article as it currently stands fulfills the FA definition entirely?

Yes, there are edits I'll probably continue to make to correct factual errors, generally improve encyclopedic scope, copyedit, etc., but I'm entirely convinced this is the *wrong* way to go about things: i.e. that it's /bad/ practice to accept "quiet" resolution of /large/ numbers of deficiencies vs. FA and lower grade criteria without reconsidering why so many slipped through the review process in the first instance and considering whether a re-review might be /beneficial/. Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Harami2000. A lot of this article is based on some very dubious hobby sheep articles and not on the sheep and procedures of the very large sheep producing nations. The picture of the flocking sheep that has been included is an insult to anyone's intelligence. These sheep have a fence each side of them, a camera in front and a someone driving them. Where else could they go? The boy and the sheep photo is also of dubious value, too. Cgoodwin (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with those photos being removed or replaced. But the assertion that it's based on "hobby sheep articles" is far from true. It's based on half a dozen recently published and reliable books. Hardly "hobby articles." The people at FAC didn't have any problem with the rigor of the sourcing. If you'd like to add more info and sources like you did at Domestic sheep reproduction, be my guest. If you can't produce better reliable sources than what's there now, there's no substance to your argument about needing FAR. Steven Walling (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Taxonomy

I noticed from source 9 that the taxonomy was different from what we had. The order is Ungulata, meaning hoofed animals and the sub-order is Artiodactyla.--Blackmage337 (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Images above headings

MOS is very clear about images having to be below headings in their relevant sections, which appears obvious, but was reverted when I fixed it. It is nonsensical and simply doesn't look good. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't nonsensical at all. I did it very intentionally to place sufficient space between the images in the article, and the "look good" part is clearly just your opinion. I have disputed this part of MOS at the talk page, as it was added from Accessibility without sufficient discussion, in my opinion. The goal is to clearly illustrate the article, and this hard line adherence to what is designed to be flexible guidelines (not policy) is not helping. Steven Walling (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Having an image outside the section it illustrates isn't non-sensical? Where else is that practiced? FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between putting the image markup outside a section in edit view and having it appear outside a section it is meant to illustrate. Clearly an image that actually looks like it's outside a section it's meant to illustrate would be nonsensical. But placing the markup just above a header, and having it appear still within the section in view mode, is not bad for readers. It illustrates a subject as intended, and allows for plenty of space between text and other images. Steven Walling (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, a problem is that different people have different screens. For example on a small screen, the image of a Faroese stamp at the bottom would barely even "touch" the text in the "cultural impact" section it is supposed to illustrate (you can experiment with this by resizing your browser window). This wouldn't be an issue at all as long as it was placed just below the heading. Screen size is a problem with large images too. They would make an article unreadable, since the images wouldn't adjust to individual screens while having a fixed size. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

When the article was at FAC, I intentionally went on a small screen (I was actually working from a 10 inch screen at the time as well) to check the image placement and tweak it. There's no point in having an image if it's so small you can't properly see what's going on in it. The standard thumb size (which I know I can change, but anon readers can't) is too small to make out a lot of images well. It's frustrating for readers. Steven Walling (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Appears there's already a discussion about this, I'd wait and see what it ends up with. FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy

i have some sources that ovis aries has no subspecies http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/classification/Ovis_aries.html http://macro.dokkyomed.ac.jp/mammal/en/species/ovis_aries.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.105.47 (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals#Taxonomy, which recommends the use of the taxonomy given in Mammal Species of the World (MSW). This link gives MSW's Ovis aries page, listing the subspecies – on the whole these are treated as species by the sources you mention. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Illness section

It's a minor fault, but the Illness heading should start with a capital, at the moment it's just "illness". The page is protected which is why I've put this here, as I can't do it myself. Also should Predation really be a subsection of Illness? It seams to me that they should be separate, as they have nothing to do with each other. 137.205.108.106 (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A call for ISO standardization ... based on....

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Aspergillus+fumigatus+sheep&btnG=Search --222.64.223.101 (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Aspergillus+fumigatus+goat&btnG=Search --222.64.223.101 (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sheep image with back marking

My understanding of the word "raddle" is that it refers to a paint pot that is strapped to the chest of a ram such that when it mounts a ewe, it leaves a paint mark so that the herdsman can tell the ewe may be pregnant. Thus the raddle is the paint pot, rather than the mark. Marks are also used to distinguish sheep, as well, but the raddle has the specific purpose I have outlined.

The word "raddled" gained a meaning of being painted up indicating sexual availability, possibly in the 18th? century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.41.163 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 24 June 2009

"Raddle" really means "ochre" (OED), so the word is equivalent to "paint". In common usage it's certainly used to mean the mark as well as the marker. Richard New Forest (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Editsemiprotected request

{{editsemiprotected}}

In Hinduism

Hindu worshippers consider the Ram as the divine vehicle (Vahana Vahana)of Mangala, the God of MarsMangala. Mangala is one of the Navagrahas Navagrahaconsidered to be influencers in Hindus Astrology. Some people even regard the Ram to be a vehicle of the Fire God, AgniAgni. This does not seem to be correct as various Hindu scriptures regard the Goat to be the correct vehicle of Agni. This is also supported by the fact that in ancient hindu religious functions, goats, rather than sheep, have been the preferred sacrificial offering to Agni.Rajshi (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not done: Congratulations! That request was your tenth edit. You can now edit semiprotected articles yourself, but I would recommend finding a reliable source to cite for that factual addition before adding it. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted

I deleted the sentence at the beginning of the page after the templates "Weebl invented sheep." This appears to be vandalism, and if it is not, please put it back after saying that it is not. UNIT A4B1 (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism. I've applied the appropriate message to the editor's talk page.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Feral sheep section or article

I was looking through this article for info on feral sheep, but could only find very scattered and limited info. I think it would be nice with a section on feral sheep (like in the Wild boar article), or even an article, since the article really doesn't cover them in themselves, only in relation to other things. Then sheep could maybe become a disambihuation page, at the moment it is kind of odd and misleading that it redirects to domestic sheep, when this is not the only kind. Why not rename the Ovis article as sheep instead? This article has some nice info on primitive sheep that could be referenced, by the way: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2718014/pdf/1297-9686-13-4-381.pdf FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is already so long, and has been split before (see the sheep navbox at the bottom), that I think creating a new article would be a good idea. This is especially true, since feral sheep are much less common than any other feral animal, from goats to pigs to horses, so emphasizing it in the main article is not quite as important. I don't think removing the sheep redirect is appropriate at all though, since the overwhelming majority of people searching for sheep mean domestic sheep. That's what the navbox and disambiguation links at the top are for. Steven Walling 20:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is the notice on this article for comments about a move? Its late and maybe I am not seeing it- could someone provide a dif please. Hardyplants (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Its the green bit below. noq (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the response noq. I see what happened now, the box was added to protect the discussion that occurred on this page. I guess I did not pay any attention to what was happening on the talk page of this article and missed my change to comment. Oh-well Hardyplants (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Sheep. Consensus is to follow WP:COMMONNAME Born2cycle (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Requested move

Domestic sheep → Sheep — Just "Sheep". Therefore, I'm making this request for this article to officially be moved, since the cover art seems official confirmation. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose – No valid reason was provided for the movereq. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  04:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• WP:COMMONNAME is the relevant WP:POLICY. All opposing arguments must show why this very sound policy is to be ignored in this case. Abductive (reasoning) 04:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support, "sheep" commonly refers to the white woolly animal humans domesticated over 10,000 years ago. Their domesticatedness is a given. Abductive (reasoning) 04:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Abductive. It's just like we have the article on domestic cats named Cat, instead of Domestic cat. I think that the article name Cat was contested before (i.e. requested to be moved to domestic cat), but nevertheless Cat remains the article's name. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 17:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Abductive. A Macedonian (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Abductive. Use of the term "Domestic", while technically accurate, gives the impression (to me at least) the article is about sheep as pets rather than livestock. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment'. If "sheep" means a domestic sheep, what do we call the members of the genus Ovis as a whole? Richard New Forest (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure why that page would need to change. It is already at Ovis, where it belongs. "Sheep" already redirects to "Domestic sheep" with a hatnote to a disambiguation page. You can still call Ovis "sheep" in the article and elsewhere if you wish, it is just that the article for the genus will be at the biological name rather than the common name because the common name is used elsewhere. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Spanish suggestion.

I would like you to add into the history section whare it talks about wool and and spains monopoly on Merino sheep the fallowing fact, the word for wool in spanish is Lana, and Lana also refers to money in spanish. Wen someone has a large sum it is refered to as "El tiene Mucha Lana!" translated "He has Lots of Money!" Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.178.99 (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting, but I don't think we can include every colloquial use of wool-related terms in every language. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Rams bumping heads

why do rams bump heads?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.125.27 (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "bump heads" is a bit of an understatement! My rams run full tilt at each other and crash their horns together with a noise like a sledgehammer on a masonry wall – and then do it again a moment later, and often again and again all day. They may occasionally shake their heads, but otherwise they seem to suffer no discomfort from many heavy impacts, just one of which would smash a human's skull to pulp.

They are fighting for dominance. Usually one ram will eventually admit defeat, and the other will become dominant, although if very evenly matched they may continue for several days. In a natural situation a dominant ram will get mating rights with more ewes.

Fighting between rams is one of the reasons most male lambs are castrated. It is possible to get rams to accept each other – the traditional method is to shut them in a small pen where there is no room to fight. They will eventually give up trying and can then be turned out into a field safely. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

History

In North America section, HMS Susan Conant should be HMS Susan Constant ? Scratchmarc (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Amendment done, though it seems the ship belonged to the English Virginia Company, not the Royal Navy, so would not have been an HMS Richard New Forest (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

PASTORAL

PASTORAL

It is unbelievable that this article contains the word "pastoral" once, when for millennias sheeps have been bred, and are still largely bred, that way.

There are two main classes of sheep breeding: unfenced-pastoral, or fenced-in paddocks ( or partly fenced-partly pastoral) , according to the comparated cost of construction and maintenance of fences, against yhe cost of human work ...

BEHAVIOUR The long story of pastoral breeding is probably responsible of the behaviour of this animal, as during millenias shepherds were selecting the animals -on the behaviour- more for their flocking attitude, than for their intelligence. The intelligent sheep, looking permanently an escape way and leading other out of the flock, is undesirable for this activity. It is easy to understand that their elimination has been an important factor of the evolution of this domestic animal.

This article is not too long, as the subject is wide. Thanks to contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.228.50 (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please find a consensus

In March, I split one big section of this article to History of sheep. Now, however, it was merged back in. We need a consensus. Georgia guy (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you were right to do so. At the moment at over 107k it is a very long article the size guide recommends that articles over 100k should "almost certainly" be divided. And the only easy to do so is by splitting out the history section, itself the only section that really suggests a separate article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The article was assessed as Featured with a history section, and without a basic history of the animal the coverage is not comprehensive and thus no longer meets the FA requirements. There have already been several forks out of this article. If you would like to discuss drastically reducing the history sections, that's okay with me in order to preserve being an overview. But the article without any info about where sheep come from in an evolutionary sense and when they were domesticated is woefully incomplete. I will not stand for that. Steven Walling • talk 20:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well then, please just add a little bit of important info and link History of sheep as the main article. Georgia guy (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

When given it's FA star it was 97k, so below 100k but still long enough that it should have been divided if it makes sense. And it is now even longer. So I would still say breaking out the history section is the most natural way to do this, as described at summary style. I can't see any other way to achieve a size reduction.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Georgia guy: I think that's a good compromise. To be honest I don't care about having all the European, American, or African history detail completely in there, but stuff from the initial section is quite important in my mind. I'll do as you suggested. Steven Walling • talk 21:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see this discussion before adding the section below. I concur--it's very important to have a History section that links to the History of sheep article. Nareek (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Then just add a little bit of info in such a section and link History of Sheep. Georgia guy (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Domestication

Seems like this article sorely needs a section on when and where sheep were domesticated, and their wild ancestors. Nareek (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see--that stuff is in History of sheep. Seems like there should be a summary of that stuff here with a link to the main article. Nareek (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Distinguishing sheep horns from goat horns

Can sheep horns be distinguished from goat horns? If have some sheep horns mounted to a wall rack, how would I tell them apart from those of goats? Is there a way to do this? Are the horns of males identical to the horns of females?

The main page of this article should have a paragraph on the unique differences between sheep horns and goat horns. 216.99.198.125 (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The article notes that domestic sheep have no horns, or have horns, or have multiple sets or only horns on males. Human intervention does that - wild sheep are another story. The article could perhaps find room for an image of a horned sheep. I would suggest the Jacob sheep breed (which can have two, four or six horns, just in one breed). Rmhermen (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I see History of sheep shows horned sheep images. Rmhermen (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally, ram horns (when they have them, and when they are large enough) are curled into a fairly tight spiral out to each side, often making a whole turn, or in some breeds sometimes well over one turn (for example see here). Goat horns tend to go up and back in a much more gentle curve, with little twist to the side, like this nanny.

There are exceptions though. The inner horns of four-horned sheep are often straight (see here). Horns of ewes (when they have them) are much less coiled, and can look like small goat horns, or they may even just be a short spike. I have one ewe whose horns are like curved, sharp-edged bread-knives pointing backwards – they cause some concern for the tenderer parts when sitting her up against my legs to shear her!

Some goats have horns that are straightish, but twist strongly on their long axis. Those of the Markhor (a wild species) do this, and those of various domestic breeds, notably the Girgentana – interestingly the horns of these two twist opposite ways [11:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC): correction after checking photo again] the latter may twist either way.

As to whether male horns can be told from female ones... If you know the breed, probably yes. If not, perhaps, or perhaps not. Female horns are much smaller and straighter – however the female horns of heavily horned breeds (such as the Portland or Wiltshire Horn) are not far short of ram horns from some lightly-horned breeds. This is however complicated by wethers (castrated males) whose horns are intermediate between those of ewes and rams. If castrated very early, wethers may hardly grow any horns – see for example these two of mine, castrated at about one day old (the middle sheep is their polled sister). These wethers are only six months old in that photo, but over a year later their horns are hardly bigger. On the other hand, if castrated later (at say two or three months) the male hormones have have had much more time to work, and the horns can then be almost as large as a ram's, though generally less tightly coiled. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

At least one sheep breed has straight, twisted horns like a markhor: see Racka. Richard New Forest (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2012

72.152.205.40 (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You don't appear to have given any details of the edit you think should be made. Please provide some details so that the request can be considered.

When you have done so, please change the tag on this section back to {{edit semi-protected|answered=no}} to reactivate the request. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 03:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request (2) on 12 February 2012

Hi, I'm Chephren Pryor I'm 12 Years Old, and i need the picture with the picture of a sheep infected with orf removed, because it was creeping me out, And I couldn't get it out of my mind.

72.152.205.40 (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I left some information on your talk page. Wikipedia is not censored, see WP:NOTCENSORED, which says: "some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.".

That means that if the only reason for removing the picture is that some may find it objectionable, that will not be done, if the picture is appropriate to the context of the article. On this occasion, I think it is appropriate. I'm an animal lover, too, but in an encyclopedia article discussing the animal, and its diseases, an illustration is warranted.

You may be interested to know that In June 2011, the Wikimedia Foundations' Board of Trustees instructed the WMF staff to "develop and implement a personal image hiding feature that will enable readers to easily hide images hosted on the projects that they do not wish to view". How to implement this feature was the subject of a referendum. It is presently under development.

I hope some of that helps - please feel free to ask further if you still have questions. Begoon ^talk 03:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that 72.152.205.40 has been indefinitely banned for vandalism. The user continued to remove the content mentioned here without responding to the help and guidance provided by Begoon and others. Just thought I would clarify in case there are future issues. Jaydubya93 (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sheep's vocal communication

There is little or no information about a sheep's bleat/baa, and the various types of a sheep's vocal sounds and their meanings. Also, the words 'Baa' and 'Bleat' currently redirect to 'Onomatopaeia', shouldn't they redirect to Sheep? Pag2006 (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Another editor has added some very good information on sheep vocalisations and I have changed the links to 'Baa' and 'Bleat' to Sheep#vocalisations. DrChrissy (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for addition to article

In the article on cattle and goats, there is mention of the domestication during the neolithic period. Perhaps the article can be improved by addition to cited information on that, as well as how long sheep have been domesticated by humans. Don't know what references to look for, perhaps someone knowledgeable on the subject can help?Wzrd1 (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think they spun of too much material when they created the History of sheep article, leaving this one without even a pointer to that article (when it should include a brief summary). Rmhermen (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Energy Absorption

The article incorrectly states that "The abomasum is the only one of the four chambers analogous to the human stomach (being the only one that absorbs nutrients for use as energy)..." In fact, most of the sheep's useful energy absorption occurs across the rumen wall, in the form of volatile fatty acids. See, for example, Van Soest's "Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant", Church's "The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition", "Dukes' Physiology of Domestic Animals", and/or other authoritative texts. There is a considerable body of research evidence on this. A couple of examples are the paper by Bergman et al. (1965. Biochem. J. 97: 53-58) and the classic paper by Barcroft et al. (1944. J. exp. Biol. 20: 120-129). Bergman et al. found that volatile fatty acids accounted for about 82 percent of the sheep's energy expenditure, and Barcroft et al. had found that, because of absorption across the [reticulo]rumen wall, and to a lesser extent, across the wall of the omasum, material entering the sheep's abomasum is virtually free of volatile fatty acids. Schafhirt (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 March 2013

Hi, I would like to add the following to 'External links'. Thanks!

• View the sheep genome in Ensembl

Gspudich (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Normally I am very hesitant to add new external links to an article but I think this is better than some of the ELs already on the article. If no one objects within 24 hours of your request I will go ahead and add it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Done Appears non-controversial, added.  — daranz [ t ] 22:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sheep compared to goats

A sentence from this paragraph is "Visual differences between sheep and goats include the beard and divided upper lip of goats." While it is true that the beard is a characteristic of goats, the divided upper lip is not. It is a characteristic of sheep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.119.33 (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the sentence should read 'Visual differences between sheep and goats include the beard of goats and divided upper lip of sheep.' How can we get this changed? JohnSHicks (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Done!__DrChrissy (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, articles about sheep do not mention that they are a type if goat-antelope, although this is stressed for other species. Stub Mandrel (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)