Talk:Komondor

comment

it says that in the odelay album cover (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Odelay) there's a Komondor, but it would look more like white Hungarian Puli than a Komondor. Size of the dog seems rather small, and the body is clearly more square than rectangle shape.

I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I wonder if there's a reference out ont the web somewhere that states authoritatively what the breed is? Elf | Talk 23:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the dog on the album cover is the komondor Mount Everest Janci Jago. Please compare the image with this one: http://www.komondor.org/

As far as I know, "Mount Everest" is hungarian kennel, so the dog probably was imported from there. Also, it is not possible to measure the body format on photo of jumping dog with such coat. nikki (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

more about Komondor

There are not so much Komondor in the world, but it seems to be a very great dog. Some more information on www.komondor.fr

Mistake: This IS a Komondor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynovella (talk • contribs) 09:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Eyes

How does it see through all the hair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.134.181 (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good question, some Hungarian Komondor breeders say that the dog can see through all that hair, and there is no need to do anything about it. Others say that cutting of some hair in front of the eyes might be helpfull (not everything but some of the dreadlocks). But be careful, not to cut everything at the same time, so the dogs eyes has a chance to get used to the light.

Warrington (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the "nothing special" Hungarian plural relevant?

What is the information in stating that the plural of komondor in Hungarian is komondorok?

You should by no means use this in English texts. By the way it is a perfectly regular plural mark. There is nothing special about it. Hungarian is regular in this kind of stuff, here you don't need to learn all the different forms like in English you have to learn the adjective form of a word. So it's pretty irrelevant info.

If you want to write in Hungarian, you know how to form plural (because it's absolutely perfectly regular), if you don't want to write in Hungarian then you will not need this info.

Hungarian language is made up of dozens of suffixes. If the plural is mentioned, why not mention other suffixes, too? Like the adjective 'komondoros', or the adverb 'komondorosan' or the word 'komondorral' meaning "with a komondor", or 'komondorom' "my komondor", or 'komondoraitokért' "for your comondors".

Tell me why this info is relevant to any reader. Qorilla (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, one should by no means use this in the English text. But when this is not included in the article some people start adding Komondorok all over the place, who knows why. It is there to stop them from doing this (some kids like to think they Komondor are experts). And it works.

Warrington (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in adding the plural. Should we add "vizslák" at Vizsla? Squash Racket (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to add it there. It's already included. The naming conventions for the animal are significant. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The naming conventions yes, but not the Hungarian plural form. The plural form added (yesterday) at Vizsla is also incorrect. Squash Racket (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha, Vizslak…. Sounds like a house, Rózsafa-lak...

Warrington (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness I brought this to your attention. My Hungarian is a bit rusty. If you look at the goose article you will see the plural form mentioned there also. What is the plural form of this beastie in English? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You speak Hungarian? I guess the goose article contains the plural form, because the English plural is grammatically remarkable (geese). The English plural form of Vizsla is not exceptional. But that's no big deal to me, I don't mind if it's there.

The same account added "Hungarian Wirehaired Vizslak" as a Hunglish plural. Do we need these in an encyclopedia? Squash Racket (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hunglish, hehe. Warrington (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No one answered my question asking what the English language plural form of Komondor is... But the answer to your question is yes, the encyclopedia article for the Komondor, a Hungarian dog breed, should note how it is pluralized in the language of its homeland. Also, what is the plural of goulash, and is there a connection to the word ghoulish? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Goulash is a soup, do these have plural forms?

The New York Times uses komondors, so we can accept it as the English plural form, which may be used on the English Wikipedia. Squash Racket (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Everything "has" a plural form in Hungarian, or better said: there is no such thing as a plural form, just the plural suffix, which can be attached to virtually any noun using certain grammatical rules. That is why the plural as such bears no relevant information in contrast to English where the 'plural' is a big deal, many irregularities and such. Also the English language hardly uses any other declension/case than the plural, that is why English speakers might think the plural is relevant, but Hungarian is different. Here the plural suffix is just one of the many regularly attachable suffixes. Please try to uderstand this. Qorilla (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what it may be confusing, thoug, ( it confuses me sometimes) is that it looks like an irregular plural form because it is not only a simple –k attached to the word, but sometimes is -ok, (like Komondorok) but other times is -ák, Vizslák, or even -ik, like Pulik, Mudik, Pumik; I think I have seen even -ök and -ak too, and thus it might be a relevant information because of these irregularities.

Warrington (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That is called vowel harmony, a key feature of Hungarian. The plural suffix is -k and according to the noun it is attached to, a regular 'bound vowel' might get between them. This 'bound vowel' depends almost only on the phonemes in the noun, you don't have to learn it for each noun. These rules are not only true for the plural suffix, but for most of the suffixes. So let's call them Bound Vowel Rules:

• if the last sound is a or e, it becomes á and é and the -k is attached: e.g. vizsla → vizslák
• if the last sound is another vowel (not a or é) then the -k is simply attached: e.g. puli → pulik; mudi → mudik (with plural adjectives, a bound may come in)
• if the last sound is a consonant then we have to look at the vowel backness:
  • if the word only has back (low) vowels (aáoóuú) then
    • adjectives (they can also have plural in Hungarian) will use -a- as the bound vowel: koszos → koszosak ('dirty')
    • nouns use -o- as bound vowel: komondor → komondorok, kuvasz → kuvaszok [except when an short old word only has one syllable and it contains a or á in which case the bound vowel might be -a-: vár → várak ('castle'); ház → házak ('house'); but newer words like bár ('bar'), gáz ('gas') etc. use the -o-: bárok, gázok]
  • if the word only has front (high) vowels (eéiíöőüű):
    • adjectives use -e- as bound vowel: vörös → vörösek;
    • nouns use:
      • if the word has an unrounded high vowel as last vowel (eéií) then the bound vowel is -e-: gyerek → gyerekek ('child'), zörej → zörejek ('noise');
      • if the word has a rounded high vowel (öőüű) as the last vowel, the bound vowel is most times -ö-: főnök → főnökök ('boss'), kör → körök ('circle'); [except for some short old words that use -e-: fül → fülek ('ear'), őz → őzek ('roe deer') ]
  • if the word has both back (low) and front (high) vowels and
    • the last vowel is back, then it will use the back type above,
    • the last vowel is front, then it is sometimes front, sometimes back, even for the same word: szlovén → szlovénok / szlovének ('Slovene'), norvég → norvégok / norvégek (Norwegian)

• a handful of (extremely few, literally handful, only listed for completeness) old, seemingly front words work as back words (not only for the plural): férfi → férfiak ('man'), derék → derekak, cél → célok, szíj → szíjak

• the stem also changes sometimes:
  • some short old words shorten their long vowel (but ó may change to a or o) and use -a- (for back, even instead of -o-) and -e- (for front, even instead of -ö-) bound vowel, and if the word ended in the long vowel an additional -v- comes in (sounds complicated, but is not):
    • nyár → nyarak ('summer'), kéz → kezek ('hand'), tűz → tüzek ('fire'), madár → madarak ('bird'), kanál → kanalak ('spoon'), út → utak ('road')
    • examples for the -v-: ló → lovak ('horse'), tó → tavak ('lake'), hó → havak ('snow'), fű → füvek, kő → kövek ('stone'), lé → levek ('juice')
  • with old words a sound may fall out if, with the plural, it would have the structure CVCVCVC (C for consonant, V for vowel) so it becomes CVCCVC. It doesn't happen with every kind of consonant. köröm → körmök ('nail' instead of *körömök), terem → termek ('room', not *teremek), kölyök → kölykök ('kid', not *kölyökök), torony → tornyok ('tower', not *toronyok), halom → halmok ('heap'), majom → majmok ('monkey')

So the system is a bit complicated to type in, but is absolutely easy to use and little children can use it without virtually any problem. I wrote everything that I could, I tried to inlcude every single type of suffix-attaching above. And again, this is not only the plural, the accusative suffix and many other suffixes follow the same basic rules. Verbs also use a similar system! If one uses Hungarian plural in English, one could also use many other suffixes like this, but I guess it wouldn't make much sense. So again, the plural is not special in Hungarian, it follows certain suffix-attaching rules, and can not be considered a separate form of the word. I understand that English only has the plural form, no cases or other suffixes, but Hungarian is a bit different, I think you see it now :) Qorilla (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is that you don't just add an s to form the plural form. So like goose, the plural form should be indicated. Quite simple really. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You missed the point that the plural is not a unique thing. It is just one of the many-many suffixes that all use this kind of attaching-rules. There can be said much more relavant information about Hungarian nouns than showing one of the many suffixes attached to it. If we want to make an English language article to be a Hungarian grammar lesson. As I said the plural is not relevant. Why? Because if it is relevant, then the other suffixed forms are equally relevant. In English it might be relevant, because English only has this form or declension so English speakers think about the plural as a separate category.

This is a question of language... Goose-geese cannot be figured out, because it is irregular. 'Komondorok' is regular. A regular suffixed attached to a noun. So it is much more like "lunch - lunches" than "goose - geese". It is as simple as attaching an -s to the end, if one knows the attaching rules. Again I tell, we have dozens of suffixes like that, so it doesn't help to just tell one. Why pick the plural? Because it is special in English? Hungarian is differend from English in many ways.

And the article should be about the dog and not about the declension of it in the Hungarian language.

Again, English texts using a Hungarian plural form is ridiculous, it just shows how much one does not understand how the language works. It is like using Wiener Schnitzel as: I like das Wiener Schnitzel. Or: I would like a dinner mit einem Wiener Schnitzel. It's a pathetic mixture of languages. Hungarian is made up of morphemes (suffixes) that work the same way as for example the prepositions in English/German.

Should we use Komondorral at each occurrance of 'with Komondor'? Then why use the plural? Because by coincidence it is also a suffix in English? Should we use 'Komondoros' in place 'like Komondor'/'Komondor-like'? Then why the plural?

If you don't speak Hungarian then you don't need to know how to attach the plural suffix to this word. It's just irrelevant. 'komondorok' has nothing to do with this specific word, or this specific dog, it just follows the rules of suffix attaching.

I can't really explain this better... Try to think a bit different from English. For a start read pages in the Hungarian language article, or more specifically Hungarian noun phrases. Qorilla (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. We can not add all this to the article....

Warrington (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who brought up the whole Vizslak question I thought that I'd throw my ten cents into the ring on this issue. Here in the UK a number of leading kennels, certainly HWV kennels at any event, use the plural form Vizslak, often (though not always) to the exclusion of other plural forms. It is, clearly, the less frequently used plural form, but it is not rare per se and is also seemingly in usage across the English speaking world. Si

Qorilla contends that it is not an accurate or relevant plural form, which is clearly correct from a Hungarian perspective, so the question then is should the Wiki article reflect actual English usage (even if technically incorrect) or attempt to correct this apparently mistaken English language convention? In either event the term certainly warrants inclusion in the relevant articles but perhaps with an appropriate caveat or explanation.

As for Squash Racket's mention of Hunglish, and Qurilla's reference to a "ridiculous... pathetic mixture of languages" the conventional English names for the two Vizsla breeds are already a mixture of the two languanges. After all the Hungarian names are: Magyar Vizsla and Drotzörü Magyar Vizsla, and a full Anglicisation would see the breeds referred to as the Hungarian Pointer & Hungarian Wirehaired Pointer respectively - in the same way that the Deutscher Kurzhaariger Vorstehhund, Deutscher Drahthaariger Vorstehhund and Deutscher Langhaariger Vorstehhund are Anglicised as Shorthaired, Wirehaired and Longhaired German Pointers rather than as breeds of German Vorstehhund. This does not mean that either Vizsla or Vorstehhund literally translate into English as pointer (Vorstehhund is also used for all HPR breeds as well as for Setters) but rather that all of the breeds mentioned are forms of Pointer.

Finally it's worth considering that all languages are continually evolving and borrowing from one another and that basterdized and multi-lingual words regularly enter and are added to vocabularies, be they English or, indeed Hungarian. Also, bearing in mind that there are more HWV's in the UK (where the breed is undergoing something of a boom in popularity) than in any other single country, including their native Hungary, if some of the most influential English HWV kennels as well as the committee members of the Hungarian Wirehaired Vizsla Association maintain their usage of the word Vizslak, as they presumably will do, then a linguistic convention will become established.

(Joviankid (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

Edit war

This http://arikomondor.com/fci_standard.htm is not the current Federation Cynologique Internationale Hungarian Standard, only the Federation Cynologique Internationale,

Warrington (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a copy in English of the current standard (2000 version). If you can find another link in english to this standard be my guest to change the link. The FCI site's english version is in Word DOC Format. If you compare the word document to the link mentioned above you will see that they are the same text.

One writes English with capital-letters. http://www.say-it-in-english.com/BasicEnglish8.html

THIS: http://www.komondor.org/html/hungarian_standard.html is the Hungarian standard.

Warrington (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not the current Hungarian Standard, but the 1966 version. The link mentioned above is a copy of the current version, as of the year 2000. The second revision since the 1966 version, the other revision took place in 1993 I believe. Though there is no difference between the minimum height and weight stated in the 1966 version and the 2000 version. However the 2000 version no longer refers to the length-wither height proportion in terms of percentages, instead simple says under a section called Important proportions that "The body length sligthly exceeds the height at the withers." Which really is saying the same thing as the the 1966 version which states that the average length to wither height percentage is 104% though can range from 100% (square shaped) to 108%. Basically that the length should be the same as the withers at the minimum but on average should slightly exceed.

It is the 1998 standard. The average dog size is correct, and the standarsd did not changed significantly. You may want to take a look at the Hungarian Komondor klub dog pictures.

Warrington (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

True however the links should probably link to the current standard not an older version. Additionally, the comments that the breed is square shaped should probably be removed, as both the AKC and the FCI standards state that the length should exceed the height (therefore not square shaped) as well as the comment that the American breed standard "may be slightly longer than the height at the withers." As it implies that this is the exception or not the average. And I am fairly positive that is the 1966 version since there is no 1998 version, just a 1966, 1993 and 2000.

The reason I say the link is the 1966 version is that under size and weight, it lists percentages of different body parts with an average and an often column. The 1993 version just states under a heading of important proportions, "Length of body - approximately 104% of height at withers. Depth of brisket - approximately 45% of height at withers. Width of body - approximately 28% of height at withers. Length of head - approximately 46% of height at withers. ". And then the 2000 version comments on proportions has already been stated above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meoconne (talk • contribs) 23:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

104% is very square.

Warrington (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

104% is not very square, since it no longer the definition of square (equal length and width). But I will grant you it is a rectangle that appears similar but not exact to a square, as Komondors with 30 inch withers, should on average have a length of 31.2 inches. But that aside neither of the breed standards use the term square or even the percentages any more, and the description should reflect this

Answer

Square in this case, is a dog description term often used for dogs about this proportions, like foxterrier.

http://arikomondor.com/fci_standard.htm FCI-Standard No 53 Dated 13.09.2000 ]</ref> The standard has not changed its general guidelines for decades.

Quote:

The Komondor is large in size and powerfully built. His appealing outward appearance and dignified deportment arouse respect and even fear in the observer. By nature he is not ingratiating. His robust body is covered by matted, corded, throughout dense, long hair. The body, seen sideways, forms a prone rectangle, little deviating from a square . The thickly coated head rises above the body. The tail is carried hanging down with its tip bent upwards, almost horizontal. The coat colour is ivoryHEIGHT AT WITHERS Dogs: Minimum 70 cm. Bitches: Minimum 65 cm. WEIGHT Dogs: 50 – 60 kg. Bitches: 40 – 50 kg.

Warrington (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia article on this breed

I hate to distract y'all from your measurements, but aren't these animals named after "dog of the Cumans" and is their heritage and introduction to Hungary mentioned? This seems more interesting to me than the AKC measurement guideline this article is becoming. I'm not sure any of that is notable other than a general description or perhaps a brief section about showdogs of this breed. Does the article on skunks give detailed measurements and standards liek this? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I see there is a section at the end of the article. I think it should be moved up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Very good, I always wanted to move that section there Warrington (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Relevant Komondor discussion from Warrington's talk page

I don't see the problem. Also the AKC clearly says: "large, muscular dog with plenty of bone and substance, covered with an unusual, heavy coat of white cords." (italics mine) Squash Racket (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, it doesn¨t say :size doesn't matter, but the kid trys to bias the text in that direction. (with terible edits, upper case)

He keeps removing the following:

average females are 27 1/2 inches (70 cm)[4][5] at the withers, male Komondor are 31 1/2 inches (80 cm) [6] at the withers, making this one of the larger breed of dog.

and

Height below the minimum is a fault. The body, seen sideways, forms a prone rectangle [11] Diversion from lower height limit as mentioned in the standard is a fault [12]

(Ref FCI, Federation Cynologique Internationale)

And he keeps adding and emphasizing:

While large size is important, type, character, symmetry, movement and ruggedness are of the greatest importance and are on no account to be sacrificed for size alone. (American Kennel club)

This part are on no account to be sacrificed for size alone, which might be interpreted or it reads size it might not be an issue, if they are OK otherwhise.

he or others also added before Komondorok ewerywhere, that is why the remark that Komondorok is a Hungarian plural...

Everybody who have seen a real life Hungarian Komondor (or several) knows that this dog is a damn big dog.

I was arguing about this since 26 February.

Warrington (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This one :

File:Komondor Westminstr Dog Show.jpg

Picture showing a very small Komondor dog for knowledge purposes the picture shows a non typical dog ( picture taken at Westminster Dog Show)

Look at that picture (middle of the article, 4th pic from top). This is a Hungarian dog magazine, but I doubt the picture has a free license. But you can link to it. Squash Racket (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, but I see problems thoug with American Komondor breeders interpretation of the Acf standard, (and this editor), also with the Wesminster Dog picture here (which might give the wrong impression about this breed). Also, take a look a the American Westminster Kennel Club Dog Shows Komonndors, see their webb picture here http://clubs.akc.org/kca/theshow.htm.

This picture on the right is from the article, I whish it wasn’t a free image...

Warrington (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

:I think you have to accept what AKC says pointing out that the info is according to AKC's standard. BTW is there really a contradiction? Quote: Dogs 27½ inches and up at the withers; bitches 25½ inches and up at the withers. Dogs are approximately 100 pounds and up, bitches, approximately 80 pounds and up at maturity, with plenty of bone and substance.
The best would be probably to find reliable sources about whether there's a difference between Hungarian and American standards. Squash Racket (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

AKC is not a problem. The dogs on the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show are the problem, which is considered by many to be America's most prestigious dog show. They have extremely short legs, and very long bodies. This webb is reliable, http://clubs.akc.org/kca/theshow.htm KCA National Specialty Best of Breed Winners.

Warrington (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If only the picture is the problem, you can remove it as "not typical" of the breed. Squash Racket (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to delete it as "not typical" of the breed, already, but it didn’t work, because people here don’t understand what this is all about.

If it is from the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show than it has to be right...

Since this is such a prestigious dog show, everybody is watching it in U.S., American people think that this is the right kind of Komondor, since the breed is not well known in the U.S.,

According to this webb there is around 120 Komondors in the US http://www.canismajor.com/dog/livestck.html#Kom

They take this photo as a reference, because they have not seen many Komondors. Not like Hungarian kids who have seen hundreds of Komondors on pictures and in real life, walked on the streets.

They take this as a reference, because they have not seen many Komondors, and it is also very bad for an encyclopaedia to show a "not typical" picture of the breed, exactly for the reasons described above.

It would be nice to have that picture "Komondor kutyák királya", where the dog is jumping on the guy. Now that is something to show.

Dogs are not kebab, each country should have his own type...

Warrington (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

A handy tapemeasure

Also:

I was arguing with several people about this at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show talk page that this dog is not typical, but the answer is always :If it is from the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show than it has to be right. Won’t let me even put a note at the picture text: this dog is a very small dog according to its breeds standard.

And now they try to modify the Komondor article too, so it should fit their perception of the breed, trying to make it sound that size is not so important and removing average height and weight, important remarks about this dog breed, and also the remark about that this is one of the largest dog breeds, and emphasizing nothing but the minimum size all the time. Slight, subtle changes about the way the appearance section reads.

Warrington (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments here

I don't see what the problem with the last edit was. The appearance description was taken directly from the FCI Hungarian Standard general appearance quote that you yourself put up in this discussion. And additionally the size comments were using the minimums and averages that are consistent with both the AKC and FCI breed standards. It seems like taking wording from a reputable source doesn't seem like trying to bias so that the size isn't the most important thing. Especially since the descriptions from breed standards are formed by experts of the breed. And while you may consider yourself quite knowledgeable or even an expert in the Komondor, that doesn't necessarily make you one. Not that I am trying to say that I am an expert because I would be the first to admit that I am not, I do however believe that taking wording from those who are experts is better than trying to either paraphrase what you have learned, or what you have gotten from the standards.

Additionally, I feel that bringing up comments again that Quincy is a below breed standard dog is uncalled for, as for one at 29.5 inch that is not below the breed standard and two it just insults an accomplished dog, that you are claiming is poor without ever having met the dog. And while us Americans are proud of Westminster, the reputation of it as a top show is not just an American idea, but it is a reputation that it has gained in the international stage as well, similar to Cruft's. Also if you read the discussion post from the breeder of Quincy herself, the dog is not just accomplished in the American show rings but Internationally as well.

The truth of the matter is that American Breeder and Hungarian breeders do differ on what attributes are the most important to breed for. It is my understand that size is of the utmost concern to Hungarian breeders, whereas American breeders focus first on health, then temperament and finally size. That doesn't make one better than the other just different. The last posts on size were an attempt to strike a compromise between the two ideologies, such that the minimum size is listed then the average as it makes logical sense to comment in order of increasing magnitude, if there was a maximum height then it would make sense to list that after the average. Also The weights were taken from the Hungarian standards, as oppose to the slightly broader AKC standard. There are other references I have seen that vary in the weights, including a different books on Komondors, one which stated that females should be 60 pounds or higher differing from the low range of Hungarian standards by 28 lb. That being said it seemed like stating that the average was the Hungarian standard .

I am not trying to change things just to bias things or be a pain or just be a troublesome kid as you refered to me earlier, I am just trying to help the article so that it properly reflects the breed and reads well. I am also trying to present you with logical arguments, and I would appreciate if you were to do the same and refrain from insulting the other posters myself included, through insulting our typos or our grammar (which your has not been perfect either) or trying to belittle us through calling us kids or uninformed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.204.57 (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing sentences like This is one of the largest breed, removing average height (which is about 90 inches) and leaving only minimum height and removing square dog type – (a usual description used for this dog body type) is not helpful and it is exactly trying to change things just to bias things in the article. Kids or adult.

Warrington (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary Comments

Warrington, could you please remove from the discussion page your personal opinions about Quincy as the majority of the comments are misrepresenting the dog as well as insulting. While personal opinions are welcome in these talk pages, a personal attack against Quincy or an Ad hominem attack [1] are not allowed as stated in the Wiki: talk guidelines. You have also through your language suggested that some of us who are posting are not knowledgeable when it comes to Komondors (i.e. suggesting we have never seen one, etc, which seems silly since if we didn't know the breed well, having not owned or bred the breed that we would care enough to spend time arguing over the representation of the Komondor.) While I can blow off personal attacks it does bother me a great deal to see you insult a dog that you have never met. If you do not think that you should take back your comments, I feel I will have to start a dispute resolution and ask for Wikipedia arbitration on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meoconne (talk • contribs) 01:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but non of these things are insults.

And I had no idea that the dog in the picture is called Quincy. Is it your dog? Or some of your friends)

Warrington (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No the dog is not mine or any of my friends. I read the post by the owner on the Westminster Page and therefore knew the name of the dog. And yes they are insulting, as you are basically saying it is a poor Komondor and that it is small for the breed standard and other comments that have no factual basis.

(unsigned comment of some of the accouns or the IP)

I am only saying that the dog in the picture is small for the breed standard as far I can judge that from the picture, yes.

The original source of the picture is flickr, Source=Flickr http://flickr.com/photos/48685334@N00/389392345/ here and it does not state the name of the Komondor in the picture. Also, the dog in the picture has no particular signalments which may identify it.

Comparing Quimcy (somebody presented an other picture about a dog indeed called Quincy here http://clubs.akc.org/kca/theshow.htm.) in that picture, compared to to all the standards of the Komondor breed, yes it is not a typical dog, that is not an insult, it is a fact. That dog has a too long body. You may see it as an insult, but that is your personalinterpretation, and not a neutral point of wiew.

Facts

That Quinct dog is not corresponding to the FCI International standard FCI-Standard No 53 Dated 13.09.2000, about body lengh around 104% of height at withers, and Back : Short. see http://arikomondor.com/fci_standard.htm - like many of the dogs presented here do not corespond to this standard requirement http://clubs.akc.org/kca/theshow.htm.

can not be based on one single and also not typical dog, All this is about creating a correct encyclopaedia which (Quincy). Sorry.

Warrington (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Average height

One can not write an encyclopaedia and only present the minimum hight of a dog breed, that is misleading, especially when so bad pictures are around - it will only mess up things even more. Average hight is indeed necessary.

Warrington (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to only put minimum height but both minimum height and average height. With minimum listed first as that makes the most logical sense and is standard practice to go from small to large. Like I said before if there was a maximum height comment. Saying the min, average and max would make sense as an order.

Additionally the previous version read very awkward, as there were multiple capitalization and punctuation problems. It didn't really flow well and repeated it self about the height fault in the paragraph. The most recent version the general appearance that you linked before reads quite well and should be free of biases as it was written by the people who came up with the standard. Additionally the size section does not make any indication as to what size is preferable but simply states this is the min and this is the average, and then this is the average weight. Also keeping consistent the primary measurement, meaning it states the US standard measurement first with the metric in parenthesis following that measurements. If you feel this should be changed again before you do so, would you willing to state in the discussion first why things should be reverted, as it seems to me like the same information is being presented but in better form and less awkwardly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meoconne (talk • contribs) 00:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Both minimum height and average height is mentioned in the article. What you do is that repetedly remove average height and leave only minimun height, which gives the impression to the readers that the Komondor is smaller than actually is. Please don't do that again.

Warrington (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you actually reading the edits or just seeing that someone changed yours and so you change it back. If you look at what is said, it listed the min height and average height. The average height is listed NOT REMOVED. I admit in some of the previous edits that started this I was just trying to correct when it listed the average heights as the minimum height, which is inaccurate. The edits attempted just to put the breed standard so it wouldn't be biased by my or your wording and they both listed the minimum heights not averages. It wasn't an attempt to emphasize the smaller size. That being said the last two edits listed both the minimum and average. The edit you keep changing it back to reads confusingly (as it appears to be just listing some sentences that were in previous edits without proper transitioning or in a logical order) and is full of grammatical mistakes.

Similar breeds

It would be nice to mention the other Hungarian breeds, especially other sheep dogs and those with similar characteristics. Pulli Munid, Viksalz, etc. etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Tre only mentioned breed, Puli was just removed [2] today by combined IP adress :70.121.204.57 and User:Meoconne. I think this all together qualifies as Wikipedia:Edit war, disruptive editing, [3], copright violation, [4], bias, non-NPOV edits Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and sockpuppetry.

OK if you actual read the reason for the removal of that particular line is that it does not seem appropriate to be mentioning another breed of dog in the introduction of the page. You'll notice it still mentioned in the history and if one were to start a section near the end talking about Hungarian dogs in general you know what that would be OK as well.As for the litany of things i am doing, since most of the reason you seem to be upset with me is with the appearance section which I have been trying to change it to reflect the AKC and FCI standard with their wording they would be non-biased and not my point of view. And while I did quote the FCI general appearance (which you listed above and if not fair use you also violated copyright) I am fairly positive it is fair use, however I am emailing the organization asking if I can quote them on the wikipedia page, and thereby avoid copyright violation.

Oh also, while this seems like it is an edit war, you are just as responsible as I am for it, remember that. Also part of the reason there are two accounts is that I have posted a couple of times before I made a user account and when I forgot to log into that user account, it wasn't an attempt to make it seem like more than one person is talking.

See also Great Dane

A Great Dane

In the ratio between length and height, the Great Dane should be square. The male shall not be less than 30 inches (75 cm) at the shoulders, but it is preferable that he be 32 inches or more (>80 cm), providing he is well proportioned to his height. The female shall not be less than 28 inches (70 cm) at the shoulders, but it is preferable that she be 30 inches or more (>75 cm), providing she is well proportioned to her height. Danes under minimum height must be disqualified.

Warrington (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC) [[Image:|thumb|230px|left| A diminutive Komondor dog]]

Now, a Komondor which is almost as big as the Great Dane, (average 30 inches) than is this picture really a good one on a Komondor?

this one is much better in that case

• Komondor pictures (Hungarian)

The Komondors appearance is dignified and commands respect. [5] The average females are 27 1/2 inches (70 cm)[6][7] at the withers, male Komondor are 31 1/2 inches (80 cm) [8] at the withers, making this one of the larger breed of dog. Females should be be minimum 25.5 inches[9] (65cm)[10] at the withers, and males a minimum of 27.5 inches[11] (70cm)[12] at the withers, height below the minimum is a fault. Males are generally between 50 - 60 kg or 110 - 132 lb[13] females 40 - 50 kg or 88 - 110 lb[14] at maturity. The body, seen sideways, forms a prone rectangle [15] Diversion from lower height limit as mentioned in the standard is a fault [16] The standard has not changed its general guidelines.

however, people unfamiliar with the breed are often surprised by how quick and agile the dogs are. According to the American breed standard,.[17] the body[18] may be slightly longer than the height at the withers.

One can not write an encyclopaedia and only present the minimum hight of a dog breed, that is a misconception, especially when so bad pictures are around - it will only mess up things even more. Average hight is indeed necessary.

BTW you removed average hight AGAIN.

Warrington (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read what has been changed, you will notice that the average HEIGHT (not hight) has never been removed. Also, the Great Dane photo you chose was very odd. It is like comparing to the jumping Komondor on the front of the Beck, Odelay, CD! The Great Dane is mid-jump and most likely jumping on a woman who is less than 6'3" (the height of the Komondor handler in the photo). There is no valid point of reference here.

Also, please explain your reasoning for including information about the Puli on the Komondor page. It is not a "miniature Komondor", it is merely another breed from Hungary with a similar coat style. Should you also comment that poodles can be corded too? Or maybe start a completely new page about the cording process of different dogs? Or a new page completely about the different dogs from Hungary?

As for your constant edit warring, please take the time to make sure your edits are grammatically correct and make sense (use consistent measurement units etc.), before flaming those who edit your statements simply to make them intelligible (I have looked at the previous edits). Lynovella (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Average HEIGHT has never been removed? Scuse me, but what are you talking about? Do you think I don’t know what happened?

Both average height has been removed, (several times), upper limit (sourced), mentioning other similar Hugarian sheepdogs and so on, all of them are extremely relevant information for this article, and when I put them back you keep removing them, and produce a lot of unhelpful edits isntead, without any consensus - and you know that wery well.

This IS exactely what edit war is. Who started it? You started that

Wikipedia is not a playground, it is an encyclopaedia for the readers.

What is happened here lately is this: The three accounts have reorganized the edits to emphasize minimum height, moved around text, and the sentence which before was one of the first sentences, The average[10] females are 27 1/2 inches (70 cm)[11][12] at the withers, male Komondor are 31 1/2 inches (80 cm) [13] at the withers, making this one of the larger breed of dog . The part making this one of the larger breed of dog dissapeared somewhere. And this part of the sentence it was in the article for several years, unchanged : many are over 30 inches tall, making this one of the larger common breeds of dog, before you started editing this article.

It wasn’t even me who added that, it was there long before my time.

Now it is not there any more.

Warrington (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think noting that the poodle used to have the same corded style of coat is very interesting and notable. It would make a good addition to the article, as would coverage of other Hungarian sheep dogs and other breeds that are similar or notably related to this animal in some respect. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thid Person Arbritation

Talk:Komondor#Relevant Komondor discussion from Warrington's talk page. Disagreement whether comments on CH Gillian's Quintessential Quincy are disparaging and should be removed from the main Komondor talk page. 20:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC) meoconne

Listen, I could and can wrote those things all over again, it was just moore easy to move them here, than write them down two times, that’s all.

Warrington (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Late to comment

Warrington had asked me to look over this page. I got a little time only now. I'm not sure I'm clear on what the problem is and, to be honest, I haven't read everyone's comments. There was a photo and in my uninformed opinion it looked like a Komondor to me. I have seen a Komondor a few years ago in Hungary and it was a tall dog, but not anything real huge. It's head was right at my hip and the wide shape of the head is what struck me the most about this dog. It seems there's some disagreement regarding which standard of the breed to use. Warrington argues that, being a Hungarian dog breed, it should be the Hungarian standard. I somewhat agree, but it seems that other widely used standards could be mentioned alongside the Hungarian one. Is there some Wikipedia policy on animal standards? I took a look at hu:Komondor and found a link to the Hungarian standard: http://www.komondorklub.hu/standard.htm It is the FCI one. I'm guessing that the Hungarians influenced the FCI standard. Google now somewhat translates Hungarian, btw. They say something about preserving the height but not increasing it. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good With Kids?

Komondors are also VERY good with kids! All age kids! they will not race up to them or bite or be agrusive, Tere GREAT WITH KIDS! From Babies To teens!

I believe you 24.144.14.84 (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Height issues

Perhaps to resolve the issues about minimum vs average height we could include a section on the AKC breed standard description? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrSaturn (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

BIS?

They say in the article that the dog in the first picture in the Komondor article is a Best in Show winner of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show in 2007. (Removed now)

But when checking on the top honors of List of Best in Show winners of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, the dog is not there in the top honors list 2007, here[5] the overall Best in Show winner of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show was a springer spaniel instead. Nothing here att best of breeds in 2007 either, [6] The dog had one award, meaning, in this case actually best of 3 of all the 3 komondors of only 3 Komondor entries. Best of 3 is not much. It was never a Best in Show winner, was not Best of Breeds in 2007 either, see results here[7]. This picture is missleading. Remove. Hafspajen (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Komondor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050216051806/http://www.katki.hu/KATKI/bal/szaktan/OGY04_32.html to http://www.katki.hu/KATKI/bal/szaktan/OGY04_32.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.adevarul.ro/articole/2002/cainii-din-rasa-pitbull-vor-fi-interzisi-in-romania.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)