Revision as of 16:45, 11 February 2022 editAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,820 edits →Merger proposal: Bull and terrier: clarify← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:03, 13 February 2022 edit undoAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,820 edits →Article's neutrality: replyNext edit → | ||
Line 255: | Line 255: | ||
::Atsme, no one claims the ] is a type just because ] descend from it. Re your other points they have already been addressed. So long as you insist reliably sourced information be excluded from the article it has a POV issue. | ::Atsme, no one claims the ] is a type just because ] descend from it. Re your other points they have already been addressed. So long as you insist reliably sourced information be excluded from the article it has a POV issue. | ||
::Something that has not been addressed is Dieter Fleig, I have asked you six times now to please verify the exact text of the source and page number you are citing. | ::Something that has not been addressed is Dieter Fleig, I have asked you six times now to please verify the exact text of the source and page number you are citing. | ||
:: |
::This really is a shame, it had been my intention to ask you to collaborate in attempting to bring this article to FA standard after the above proposal concluded, it would have opened the article to a very rich history section. Instead the article is now marked with page issues. Please address the Fleig issue, otherwise a {{tl|verification needed}} tag will need to be added. ] (]) 09:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC). | ||
:::All I remember about Fleig is you wanting a page number, which I provided and moved on. I have since removed the citation because it was a time sink, and I no longer had access to the source. I also didn't exclude any legitimate information from the article, in fact I've been adding more. Oh, and instead of tagging the whole article, use section tags or inline tags, and be specific as to what you consider a NPOV issue. ] ] ] 07:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:03, 13 February 2022
Staffordshire Bull Terrier has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 24, 2019. (Reviewed version). |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Irish bull terrier was copied or moved into Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Breed-Specific Legislation with this edit on 22 November 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Killer Breed
I'm really surprised that there are not many references in the article to the fact that this breed routinely kills people, particularly children. The internet is littered with articles about people being killed by Staffordshire Bull Terriers. It seems that there are a number of Staffordshire Bull Terrier enthusiasts on here who keep moulding this article with positive points as opposed to the truth that this breed is s killer. 146.90.15.7 (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? Cavalryman (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC).
Then you know little about the breed I can very safely say SBT when brought up nicely are truly lovely animals. The sensationalising media have demonised this breed along with its cousins the Am Staff and ISBT. Anyway not much longer now before the DDA will be rewritten as Vets / Kennel Clubs are on the side of reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Please dont remove legitimate comment or your editing rights may be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
You know nothing about Pitbulls and staffie (English staffies look like they are smiling and the American ones are taller then American bully and have pointy ears) Read this https://www.therealpitbull.com/facts/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B105:CEA3:8538:8A78:1D69:A5A5 (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Merger proposal: Bull and terrier
June 2021-Feb 2022 Bull and terrier merge to Staffordshire Bull Terrier closed as no consensus | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No consensus has emerged in support of the proposal. SN54129 12:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am of the opinion that Bull and terrier should be merged into this page. Since rewriting the history section of this article two years ago, more and better sources have become available to me, and the vast majority consider the two one and the same, several stating explicitly the Bull and Terrier became the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The current breed name Staffordshire Bull Terrier was only adopted in the 1930s in order to gain recognition for the breed with the Kennel Club, but the article should very definitely retain this name. Cavalryman (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC).
I oppose it the Bull and Terrier is clearly a separate breed of dog.Dwanyewest (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
This proposal appears to be attracting lots of personal opinions - no doubt based on dubious websites and references which people have read in their past (it even surprised me!) - but it is not attracting WP:RELIABLE references to support those opinions. "Dwayne" and Platonk do you still maintain your original positions after Cavalryman's comments, please? William Harris (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
The result of the decision to breed more athletic dogs for fighting purposes was the emergence of the so-called 'Bull and Terrier', sometimes referred to as the 'Pit dog'. This is of prime importance in the story of the development of our breed as 150 years later this dog would be recognised by the Kennel Club as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier!Cavalryman (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC).
Break@Atsme: I see you are now trying to sanitise the article of sources that do not agree with your incorrect point of view, if you continue in this fashion the history section will only be cited to the AKC. It has already been demonstrated here that you were incorrect when you said above
References
Possible rewriteBelow is a very rough cut of how I think this lead and history section could look if merged. It was written by ipad in the dark so please excuse some of the errors, also I have not progressed beyond 1938, obviously it needs to discuss the breed's proliferation around the world. Cavalryman (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC).
|
Article's neutrality
There appears to be a concerted effort to exclude any information from this article that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was the very same dog breed as the Bull and a Terrier, which was just an earlier name for this breed. The vast majority of sources about the Staffordshire Bull Terrier make this claim or claims supporting it. Here are some already discussed in the above section:
- Beaufoy, James (2016). Staffordshire Bull Terriers: a practical guide for owners and breeders. Ramsbury, Wiltshire: The Crowood Press Ltd. ISBN 9781785000973. -
The result of the decision to breed more athletic dogs for fighting purposes was the emergence of the so-called 'Bull and Terrier', sometimes referred to as the 'Pit dog'. This is of prime importance in the story of the development of our breed as 150 years later this dog would be recognised by the Kennel Club as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier!
- Coile, D. Caroline (1998). Encyclopedia of dog breeds. Hauppauge: Barron's Educational Series. p. 146. ISBN 0-7641-5097-9. -
The result was aptly called the Bull and Terrier, later to be dubbed the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
- Jones, Arthur Frederick (1964). The treasury of dogs. New York: The Golden Press Inc. p. 165. -
He was first known as the Bull-and-Terrier ...
- Jones, Arthur F.; Hamilton, Ferelith (1971). The world encyclopedia of dogs. New York: Galahad Books. p. 481. ISBN 0-88365-302-8. -
Quite apart from the name “Bull-and-Terrier” used freely in literature for many decades , respected authors like Pierce Egan in the Annals of Sporting (Vol. I.), 1822, refer to result of these crossings for the first time as “Bull Terriers”.
- Morris, Desmond (2001). Dogs: the ultimate dictionary of over 1,000 dog breeds. North Pomfret, VT: Trafalgar Square Publishing. p. 346. ISBN 1-57076-219-8. -
The first recorded name of this dog was the Bull-and-terrier. It has also been referred to as the Bull-dog Terrier, the Pit dog, the Brindle Bull, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Pit-Dog.
- Wilcox, Bonnie; Walkowicz, Chris (1989). Atlas of dog breeds of the world. Neptune City, N.J.: TFH Publications. p. 811. -
This was the original “Bull-and-Terrier.”
And here are some other sources presented above that support this:
- Alderton, David (1987). The dog: the most complete, illustrated, practical guide to dogs and their world. London: New Burlington Books. p. 102. ISBN 0-948872-13-6. -
The origins of this breed are far from illustrious. It was developed primarily as a fighting dog in the early nineteenth century from terriers crossed with Bulldogs ...
- Billett, Michael (1994). A history of English country sports. London: Robert Hale Limited. p. 39. ISBN 0-7090-5238-3. -
... a new breed known as the bull terrier, or the 'half-and-half' breed. It was also called the pit dog and eventually the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
- Coile, D. Caroline (27 May 2001). "Back to the time of the gladiator". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 18 July 2019. -
It is a generic designation for several breeds including the American pit bull terrier, which was the first breed registered by the United Kennel Club (UKC) in 1898; its counterpart, the American Staffordshire terrier, which was registered by the American Kennel Club (AKC) in 1936; and the ancestor of both breeds, the Staffordshire bull terrier.
- Fletcher, Walter R. (19 September 1971). "A Breed That Came Up the Hard Way". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 May 2019. -
His ancestors are believed to be the bulldog and English terrier and he was known as the Pit Dog or Pit Bull Terrier.
And here are what is stated by some kennel clubs who provide any historical overview about the breed:
- the American Kennel Club -
The Bull-and-Terrier, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Pit-dog, and the Brindle Bull are a few of the Stafford’s historical aliases.
(I can not currently read any text in this article, but it was copied by me on 3 September 2021) - the Australian National Kennel Council -
The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the "original Bull Terrier", simply a renamed version of the "Bull and Terrier".
- the Canadian Kennel Club -
The Bull and Terrier might have disappeared if not for a group of fanciers led by Joseph Dunn, who appreciated the dogs for their own sakes and persuaded The Kennel Club (England) to recognize the breed as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the name of the English county where the breed was most popular.
- the Société Centrale Canine -
It was created in the 19th century in Staffordshire, by crossbreeding the Bulldog and various terriers
(please forgive the machine translation)
This information is being excluded principally because this article published on the American Kennel Club's website states Basically the hybrid of its day, the bull and terrier wasn’t a bona-fide breed. Rather, it was a rough outline, a starting point for several breeds, including the dogs that today we call “pitbulls.”
As long as this information is excluded from the article, and given commensurate weight as accorded by the what the preponderance of the sources state, this article does not present a NPOV about this breed's ancestry. Cavalryman (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC).
- I've been trying to stay clear of this, but was pinged. I'm convinced by the documentation provided here by Cavalryman. A couple of observations/questions:
- it's not unusual for a breed to be listed as "extinct" when in fact it continues under a different name
- if the bull and terrier is actually extinct (i.e., all members of that breed or type died without issue), when and by what mechanism did the extinction take place? (it must have been within the last century or so, so we'd expect such an event to be well documented)
- if the Staffie was in some way different from the b-and-t, how were the changes brought about, when and by whom? (again, we'd expect an event in the twentieth century to be fairly thoroughly documented)
- in any rewrite (I've read Cavalryman's draft), we shouldn't refer to the thing by a name it didn't have at the time (better to call them "these dogs", "dogs of this kind" or whatever circumlocution pleases you best).
- I haven't read every word of the section above, so please excuse me if all this has already been said. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Cavalryman, the AKC link you can't access is archived here (for others: go down the page to History, then 'Read more'). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Justlettersandnumbers, many thanks. I should have searched for an archived link. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC).
- Cavalryman, the AKC link you can't access is archived here (for others: go down the page to History, then 'Read more'). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
A link provided to an article with no author taking responsibility, no references cited as to where this information came from, yet some believe that this information is in some way "reliable". 182.239.146.186 (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- In response to CM's comment that "There appears to be a concerted effort to exclude any information from this article", there definitely is an effort, but I question your allegation that it's a "concerted" one. Of course there is an effort, and I'm surprised more haven't joined in to prevent the addition of confusing fringe material in an article that wears the GA emblem. If the fringe isn't bad enough, it gets even worse when it's based on anecdotal accounts about undocumented crosses that were never considered a breed. Bull and terrier crosses represent a type of dog that dates back to the days of bloodsports in the mid-1800s. DNA evidence proves that bull and terrier crosses are the result of undocumented crossbreeding. What you are trying to convince others is that it's factual information based on verifiable documentation about the breed's origins, when in reality the material is nothing more than passing mention of anecdotal accounts in some dog books which makes it noncompliant with WP:V, WP:FRINGE and WP:OR - and you are challenging what is currently in the article - tagged it as having NPOV issues - when in fact, the material currently in the article is based on DNA evidence and documentation from reputable/reliable breed registries. The AKC History section states (my bold underline): The story of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a relatively brief one in the grand scheme of canine history, but it can be confused by the several different names hung on the breed at various times. The Bull-and-Terrier, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Pit-dog, and the Brindle Bull are a few of the Stafford’s historical aliases. We do not want to introduce confusing aliases into this GA stamped article which is what you are attempting to do. Furthermore, there is strong DNA evidence - science based evidence - about the Stafford's ancestral origins that is already included in the article. Genomic Analyses Reveal the Influence of Geographic Origin, Migration, and Hybridization on Modern Dog Breed Development clearly states (my bold underline): The ability to determine a time of hybridization for recent admixture events can refine sparse historical accounts of breed formation. For example, when dog fighting was a popular form of entertainment, many combinations of terriers and mastiff or bully-type breeds were crossed to create dogs that would excel in that sport. In this analysis, all of the bull and terrier crosses map to the terriers of Ireland and date to 1860-1870. This coincides perfectly with the historical descriptions that, though they do not clearly identify all breeds involved, report the popularity of dog contests in Ireland and the lack of stud book veracity, hence undocumented crosses, during this era of breed creation (Lee, 1894). Look at the dark blue section of Figure 1 - Cladogram of 161 Domestic Dog Breeds. There are many theories about how various dog breeds began, but theories that are not backed by science or verifiable facts are fringe theories. This article is sourced to science-based information backed by factual documentation published by reputable breed registries and kennel clubs that have for years maintained stud books, conducted DNA testing, and accumulated reliable documentation, all of which was required before putting their stamp on the breed as a purebred. Atsme 💬 📧 01:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Atsme: please do not remove the POV tag from the article and allow this discussion proceed, it has only just commenced. This and the above proposal are not mutually exclusive, yes I remain unconvinced by any of the oppose arguments above but this article must follow the sources. Cavalryman (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC).
- Notice: I opened a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Staffordshire Bull Terrier Atsme 💬 📧 06:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Atsme, what exactly about the genomic analysis completely refutes what is being said here? I believe it actually supports the above sources. Apart from the timelines being a couple of decades apart the paper seems to support that all the breeds descend from a common time and crossing of two dog types. Further, the more detailed sources on the subject state whilst the Old English Terrier is the most commonly claimed terrier variety used, most likely whatever terriers were available or best suited to the task were used. These could have been Irish. This study seems to compliment the above sources and as can be seen by my very rough draft above, I am in no way advocating it be removed from the article. Cavalryman (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC).
- To answer your question, the descendants, aka forerunners (century old ancesters of unverified crossbreeds), cannot be the exact same breed that is a modern dog breed renamed, especially when official breed registries refused to recognize them as a breed. Refer to the DNA results and cladogram which completely supports my position. The ancesters were undocumented pit-fighting bulldog (possibly mastiff) x terrier from Ireland crosses - which is another reason we need to keep the standalone articles of extinct dog types for historic reference. Granted, I initially agreed that a redirect was warranted for Old English Terrier back when you proposed the merge to Black and Tan Terrier but in retrospect, I think it was a mistake that needs to be revisited along with other merges/redirects that are similar in nature. The English Stafford (not to be confused with the AmStaff) was developed for confirmation showing and a much different temperament from the bulldog/mastiff/terrier crosses that were bred for fighting purposes - bloodsports were made illegal and the breeding types had to be changed. A century later, those descendants are much different types of dogs. There are 3 sections in the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article that accurately describes the breed's ancestral beginnings. The Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Terrier (which is a dab page), and American Staffordshire Terrier all have history sections that mention the bull x terrier cross. The AmStaff article states: The name of the breed was revised on January 1, 1969, to American Staffordshire Terrier to distinguish it from the British Staffordshire Bull Terrier, a separate breed from the Bull-type terrier group, recognized in England in 1935. AKC further supports that position: When it comes to the bull-type terrier breeds, all can agree that the common component in their makeup was the Bulldog. (Note that the Bulldog of 200 years ago was a vastly different, more ferocious creature than the lovable “sourmugs” of today.) Argument begins when breed experts try to nail down which preexisting terrier breeds reside in the AmStaff’s genetic background. Some suggest that such extinct breeds as the White English Terrier and Black-and-Tan Terrier were part of the genetic mix that led to the creation of the Staffordshire Terrier, forerunner of the AmStaff. DNA supports what AKC is stating and in no way supports what you have proposed to do with the English Stafford. I think we would better served to spend our time improving the Bull and terrier article and possibly even restoring some of the redirects and merged historic articles because we are misleading readers by redirecting or merging into a particular breed when several modern breeds are considered the forerunners. Atsme 💬 📧 18:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Atsme, I am not sure I follow. Neither quote you have provided is inconsistent with "Bull and Terrier" being an old name for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. And as shown at the top of this section, the AKC believes they are one and the same also. Nothing cited here is vastly inconsistent with these two being one.
- Also, please can you answer my question in the above section? Cavalryman (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC).
Please see discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Sources for the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Cavalryman, ask yourself this one question: if SBT is the bull and terrier as you're suggesting, then how do you explain the other 5 distinct modern breeds that are also descendants? DNA evidence supports the genetic mapping and commonalities of those distinct breeds. You can't just take one breed out of the mix and claim it's the bull and terrier. The world is not flat.
- The bull and terrier was never a bonafide breed;
- The name is simply a descriptor for a heterogeneous group of dogs that may include purebreds involving different breeds, as well as dogs believed to be crosses of those breeds, whatever they might be;
- The progeny resulted from undocumented bull and terrier hybrid crosses during the era of breed creation (1860–1870);
- DNA results corroborate that "bull and terrier" crossbreeds or hybrids are considered the forerunner of several modern standardised breeds.
- The Bull Terrier was the first recognized breed (1885 AKC) that resulted from the "bull and terrier" hybrids and was officially recognized as such:
It was in the early 1860s that Englishman James Hinks took an old fighting breed, a Bulldog-terrier cross called the Bull-and-Terrier, and refined and standardized it as the modern Bull Terrier.
- You really need to drop this isssue and allow things to return to normal. Atsme 💬 📧 08:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Atsme, no one claims the German Shepherd is a type just because a number of breeds descend from it. Re your other points they have already been addressed. So long as you insist reliably sourced information be excluded from the article it has a POV issue.
- Something that has not been addressed is Dieter Fleig, I have asked you six times now to please verify the exact text of the source and page number you are citing.
- This really is a shame, it had been my intention to ask you to collaborate in attempting to bring this article to FA standard after the above proposal concluded, it would have opened the article to a very rich history section. Instead the article is now marked with page issues. Please address the Fleig issue, otherwise a {{verification needed}} tag will need to be added. Cavalryman (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC).
- All I remember about Fleig is you wanting a page number, which I provided and moved on. I have since removed the citation because it was a time sink, and I no longer had access to the source. I also didn't exclude any legitimate information from the article, in fact I've been adding more. Oh, and instead of tagging the whole article, use section tags or inline tags, and be specific as to what you consider a NPOV issue. Atsme 💬 📧 07:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Natural sciences good articles
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class Dogs articles
- Mid-importance Dogs articles
- WikiProject Dogs articles
- GA-Class United Kingdom articles
- Low-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles