This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Dogs High‑importance edit history watch purge Here are some WikiProject Dogs : Recent changes patrol: members can review the recent changes list to be aware of improvements or vandalism. Expand and improve citations: Plummer Terrier, Plott Hound, Polish Greyhound, Porcelaine, Portuguese Water Dog, Pudelpointer, Rajapalayam dog, Rat Terrier, Saarloos wolfdog, Sabueso Español, Saint Miguel Cattle Dog, Šarplaninac, Schipperke, Serrano Bulldog, Shikoku dog, Skye Terrier, Sloughi, Slovak Cuvac, Small Münsterländer, Smithfield (dog), Smooth Collie, South Russian Ovcharka, Spanish Water Dog, Standard Schnauzer, Swedish Vallhund, Tatra Shepherd Dog, Terceira Mastiff, Thai Bangkaew Dog, Tibetan Mastiff, Tibetan spaniel, Tornjak, Weimaraner, Welsh Hound, Welsh Terrier, West Siberian Laika, Westphalian Dachsbracke, Xoloitzcuintle, Xigou Vikhan Sheepdog, Westphalian Dachsbracke, White Shepherd Suggested Featured Articles due for re-assessment: Beagle (2007) Suggested Good Articles due for re-assessment: Swift fox (2008); Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (2009); Clumber Spaniel (2009); Russian Spaniel (2009); Sussex Spaniel (2009) Vikhan Sheepdog, Villanuco de Las Encartaciones

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Sbeau7.

Above undated message substituted from

3) Under concepts, insert research about the emotional benefits dogs have on humans.Cvillalva (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Sources

• This source gives information on the human-canine bond and it also shows the opinion on it from a psychologist's point of view. The psychologist states whether or not he believes the human-canine bond is a modern human invention or if it has been around for a long period of time.

Coren, Ph.D., Stanley. "Small Miracles and the Human-Canine Bond: The Case of Ben and Charlie | Psychology Today." Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness Find a Therapist. Canine Corner, 19 Dec. 2009. Web. 28 June 2011. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/200912/small-miracles-and-the-human-canine-bond-the-case-ben-and-charlie>.

• This source describes a story of a man and his dog. This will be used as an example of the human canine bond.

Kesling, Joyce D. "The Human/Dog Bond - a Matter of Selective Love and Despise - Responsible Dog and Cat." Florida Dog Training, Florida Dog Boarding, Sarasota FL. Responsible Dog and Cat Training - Behavior Solutions, 2005. Web. 28 June 2011. <http://www.responsibledog.net/human_dog_bond.html>.

• This source is given from an animal behavior consultant's point of view and describes the human-dog relationship. It also describes the effects of the relationship on dogs and an analysis on the human-canine bond.

Eware1 (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to improve the content of this article, I will go through research articles and credible websites in order to get information on the human-canine bond. I will look for basic overview information of the human-canine bond as well as psychologist's perspectives. When finished with this article, there will be an overview, background information, research information about the human-canine bond, psychologists' perspcetives on it, and examples of the human-canine bond. This will all be available as an effort to improve that class and information of this article. Eware1 (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human-Canine Bond

• Rejected: Template talk:Did you know/Human-Canine Bond

• Note after the fact: This article was expanded by a student for this class. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the last sentence as it seems superfluous at best.-70.190.102.49 (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You also removed sourced content. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you keep removing my edits, and call them disruptive. Why is the human-canine relationship described as "mutually beneficial"? Are dogs special? The people of the "pet-keeping" West don't believe it themselves. Why do they torture dogs to death in laboratories as they do pigs and cattle on factory farms and slaughterhouses, if they believe it?

And "anthropomorphism" is not relevant here. It is not a field, only an idea. Anthrozoology, on the other hand, is a real field.

-70.190.102.49 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that makes my edits POV and yours not?-70.190.102.49 (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To improve the article, more content and information could be given on the theories of the human-canine bond. The theories are just listed and not explained and the article could be much more educational if these theories had more information/explanation along with the names. The reference section also has the same reference listed multiple times, just accessed on different days. Combining these references would fix the issue. Hrt4Music 22:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heart4music (talk • contribs)

Is this it? I don't know enough about the subject to be sure. Looks like it to me though. Or at the very least, it's been written by a contributor with a book to push POV. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely some original research, but I think the current tags are sufficient to avoid "biting" people. It shares the focus of a section in

Dogs as pets?) Anna ^talk 19:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Sounds reasonable to me! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider creating this proposed article on an extremely notable topic. (Sources are included).--Coin945 (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human–canine bond. 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/20120328034132/http://www.deltasociety.org/Page.aspx?pid=317 to http://www.deltasociety.org/Page.aspx?pid=317

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.

• 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) 14:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to have nothing on topic that is well-sourced; suggest blank and redirect to

I'm ambivalent. It is adequately sourced, if not well-sourced. The dog thing is a pretty notable subset of the human-animal bond and I think suitable for a spin-off. I think that improving it is preferable to a merge. It's maybe worth pinging the psychology project to see if they have input. All that said, I have insufficient motivation or interest to be the one to improve it, personally. But I see no harm in keeping it around. Montanabw^(talk) 02:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which source(s) do you think adequate? So far as I can see they aren't about the "Human–canine bond".

talk) 05:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Looks like another editor is working on it. I see no reason not to give him some time and see what he does with it. There is

WP:NODEADLINE. Montanabw^(talk) 06:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

But what are these adequate sources? Genuine question - if there are sources here I would hesitate to blank & redirect.

talk) 06:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

There are five sources, they are adequate to explain what it is and cover the basics. Obviously more work is needed, but I am not the person who has the time to do it. You could actually do a little research and assist in improving the article if you wanted to. Montanabw^(talk) 06:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did do some "research", and my impression was the sources we are using aren't on topic ... which is why I am asking about your "adequately sourced" comment. Did you look at the sources and see something different to me? This matters.

talk) 08:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The best solution is to improve sourcing then. Montanabw^(talk) 06:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does a title change to human-canine relationship make sense? I think it would open up the article to more discussion on neutral or even negative types of relationships ShaveKongo (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 10 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KJSMSU07 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by KJSMSU07 (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]