Talk:Puli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Dogs Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the Dog breeds task force.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

[edit] Removed personal comment

Removed "cutest of cute", as we like to base articles on fact. --NaOH 06:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

removed this In Hungary, it is said the Puli is not a dog. Friends of the Puli everywhere know this is true. Yet it's hard to say just what a Puli is. We know the Puli is very smart, able to teach humans hundreds of commands. He has a great sense of humor, which manifests itself in tricks he plays on both two and four legged companions. A Puli develops strategies for getting what he wants, something former dog owners don't quite believe when they first spend time with a Puli. And the Puli will often show great sensitivity to the human's moods and feelings, actively communicating empathy. But most of the time, the adult Puli likes to play games and have fun. Pulik (Hungarian plural for Puli) keep their puppyhood attitude nearly their whole lives. Schnerf 18:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed fictional history

I removed the following history paragraph because of its fictional content:

The Puli is an ancient sheep dog of Hungary, introduced by the migration of the Magyars from Central Asia in the Middle Ages. Nomadic shepherds of the Hungarian plains valued their herding dogs, paying as much as a year's salary for a Puli. ''In Asia, the breed goes back 2000 years and anecdotal evidence suggests a Puli-like dog existed 6000 years ago. This breed is possibly the ancestor of the modern Poodle. The ancestry of the Puli, however, is not known with certainty.

S. Eniko Szeremy, editor of Puli News (the PCA newsletter), wrote of the Puli's history: The Puli is the ancient sheepdog of Hungary, introduced by the migration of the Magyars from Central Asia over 1000 years ago. Records show Pulis working the plains of Puszta as early as the 9th century. Some believe the Puli existed as a working sheepdog for thousands of years prior to this, perhaps as early as 4500 B.C. They were ruthless in maintaining working qualities and would eliminate any dogs that didn't show these qualities immediately. To survive, the Puli had to be physically sound and mentally capable, agile and willing to work. The Puli's coat protected the dog while living outdoors without amenities.'''

The fact is that, as with almost all breeds, not much is known about this dogs history. The exotic exterior may suggest a relation with the ancient Magyars, but not a single fact has been found to support this connection. The supposed Sumerian origin of the Puli seems to go back to a historical fraud by a certain Sándor Pálvalfy. Cuon 14:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

WHO ARE YOU TO REFUTE THIS INFORMATION?

All the removed content above was taken from the website of the Puli Club of America, the nationally recognized breed club. Their knowledge comes from well documented sources and the history of the dog, as outlined above, is not fiction and is in fact recognized by the AKC, the CKC, the Hungarian Puli Club and similar organizations all over the world.

You say not much is known about this dog's history. This is NOT TRUE. There are many respected texts about the Puli, published in many languages and easily available for reference.

You refer to a "historical fraud" but cite no references to it. Why?

If you, and others, insist on refuting a breed history that is agreed upon as true by kennel clubs around the world, then the Wikipedia dog project should end here. Because, according to you, nothing is known about the origin and history of most dog breeds...so why bother? Laplage 07:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Laplage

If you disagree with the removal, re-add it, and make sure you add references to back up what you add to the article. A link to the relevant page on the PCA website would probably be a good start in this case. Jerazol 07:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A historian should check his sources carefully, but the writers of breed studies are seldom trained historians. If you take a good look at the historical facts collected by Anghi Csaba or later authors (Árkosi József, Arany Csaba, Ócság Imre, Mészaros Mihály) you will see that indeed not a single source has been found dating further back than 1750. They all speculate, but even clues to make reasonable guesses are lacking.

As a result people tend to see the pre-history of breeds from the point of view of their own national history. But if we really have to speculate, would it not make more sense to do that from a dog's point of view? We should collect and compare all we know about the different puli-like breeds, and we should study the economics and culture of herding and the 'laws' of development of dog-types etc etc.

Old cherished stories may be hard to part with, but would that not be an exiting new field of study? To understand what I mean I recommend reading Raymond and Lorna Coppingers "Dogs", a modern study on canine evolution. It might change your way of thinking about dogs! Cuon 11:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot the fraud. Check Árkosi's book (Magyar pásztorkutyák), he tried to find the documents Pálfalvy cites as proof for his theories. Without succes, as was to be expected. As I remember another unsuccesful attempt to locate these sources has been made in Holland. Cuon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuon (talk • contribs) 11:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

CONTENT FROM PUBLISHED SOURCES

Your suggestion that "we should collect and compare all we know about the different puli-like breeds etc" has nothing to do with this article. It is wiki policy to use only information from PUBLISHED SOURCES and NOT from any original research, which is what you're suggesting.

The published sources about the Puli are many and varied; all were published quite some time ago and have stood the test of time. Their findings and descriptions are considered correct and factual by the highest authorities on the breed in the world, including the American Kennel Club. I would imagine if this "fraud" was real, they would have heard about it by now, don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.37.239 (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)