Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Staffordshire Bull Terrier. 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/20110706124054/http://www.ankc.org.au/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=71 to http://www.ankc.org.au/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=71
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fci.be/uploaded_files/076gb98_en.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031105035003/http://www.nzkc.org.nz/br280.html to http://www.nzkc.org.nz/br280.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070306152038/http://mail.ukcdogs.com/UKCweb.nsf/80de88211ee3f2dc8525703f004ccb1e/dd9391625058cc238525704d006966a7?OpenDocument to http://mail.ukcdogs.com/UKCweb.nsf/80de88211ee3f2dc8525703f004ccb1e/dd9391625058cc238525704d006966a7?OpenDocument

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) 12:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Request received to merge articles: Irish Bull Terrier into Staffordshire Bull Terrier; dated: November 2018. Proposer's Rationale: Irish Bull Terrier aka Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier should be merged here (or possibly create a redirect and add a paragraph explaining the crux of this 2002 article published in Telegraph - or maybe a speedy would be appropriate. It's a fictitious breed, has no recognized breed registry or any RS that either verifies such a breed exists or passes WP:GNG. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirects have been executed as consensus to merge is obvious. Atsme✍🏻📧 14:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion NOTE: I've posted notice of this discussion on WikiProject Dogs. Atsme✍🏻📧 19:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC) NOTE 2: I posted notice of this discussion to several involved editors who have edited one or both of the involved articles from September forward. Atsme✍🏻📧 22:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC) No merger: The Irish Bull Terrier is a separate breed and deserves it's own article. The merger banner should be removed immediately. IQ125 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Well IQ125, this isn't an RfC that requires an iVote, it's a discussion. The RSPCA does not recognize the "Irish" variety as a breed, so what RS can you provide to verify it as a breed? Please add at least 2 . Thank you. Atsme✍🏻📧 23:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC) IQ125's claims are directly refuted by the article's own text (or, rather, by the sources it cites). It is not a breed at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Off-topic digression ... SMcCandlish was just deleted my citations from a book and the information that came from the book that was in the article. I would ask him to put the information back with the citations. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia! IQ125 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC) I did nothing of the sort; you're blaming the wrong editor. However, your mass-revert clobbered EVERY recent edit by everyone at that page, and even stripped out the merge tag. Please be more careful. I've undone your mass-revert and re-inserted your source and the details from it. (A {{minnow}} to whoever did delete that; you be more careful, too, please.) Also did some citation cleanup. PS: The source in question doesn't establish this as a breed, either. The fact that the dogs exist and have been used for fighting and ratting isn't disputed by anyone. This just isn't a distinct enough population – especially as mongrelized cross-breed – to warrant a stand-alone article. We do have some articles on cross-breeds, like Labradoodle, but only because they have an overwhelming amount of secondary-source material written about them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC) I was the editor who deleted them. The book is an unreliable source, in limited print by a non-notable author, and is obviously self-published by a marketing firm. Just curious...IQ125, did you author that book or know the person who did? Atsme✍🏻📧 14:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Wait, are we talking about the same source? The TFH Publications I know of is a major publisher of high-quality breeding and pet-keeping works; their reptile and amphibian encyclopedia is arguably the best in the world.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC) No, I was referring to Barker, Shaun (2000). Staffordshire Bull Terriers (English and Irish). Northbrook Publishing. ISBN 978-1857362428. Diff. The edits & reverts became confusing. Atsme✍🏻📧 21:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Ah! Okay. Well, at some point, someone did nuke the ref to the TFH source, and I restored that one (cited twice, including in the lead). I don't care who did it. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Support merge This is some sort of bloodline group or even a hybrid. I see no reliable sources backing up this critter as a legitimate breed. I see similar issues in the horse breed articles where someone has a crossbred or a bloodline group that they want to spin off as a content fork. I say merge this back to the main article; it's worth maybe a paragraph or so there. Maybe. Montanabw(talk) 19:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Support merge The "Irish Bull Terrier" is not recognised by any kennel club organisation. Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard 11:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Merge per nom. Clearly imaginary. ——SerialNumber54129 12:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Merge. While there are sources, what they come down to is that this isn't a breed, or a population, or a variety, or a sub-breed, but is a nomenclatural shell-game being used to evade pit-bull-related laws. This is clearly a good sub-section for the main article, though. It's just not an encyclopedic topic in its own right.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Merge Seems to be a sub breed, not not nearly enough to warrant its own article.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Support merge not a stand alone breed but a line of the Staffie. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC). Support merge Not a recognized breed and we should not support any dog breeder marketing promotionalism. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Support merge - formally as nom. Atsme✍🏻📧 15:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Support merge in principle, in that it seems that this isn't in no way a distinct breed and is unworthy of an article. That said, I'm not so sure about the target. It seems that the folks selling these dogs are claiming that they're an already established branch of the bull and terrier mixes from Ireland that are closely related to the English Staffordshire Bull Terrier (SBT). But it also seems like that's a load of bunk designed to get around the UK's ban on American Pit Bull Terriers (APBT). and that these dogs are actually just a lineage of APBTs that may have some SBT (and/or American Staffordshire Terrier (AST)) lineage as well. (I'm not going to get into the worthlessness and prejudicial nature of breed specific legislation, or how pointless and dumb it is that the UK's version doesn't ban the substantially similar domestic breed.) Indeed, there's a good chance that these are just general mutts crossing multiple breeds of the pit bull type. As such, I think the target is not the best choice, as merging to the SBT article specifically would only reinforce the misidentification of these dogs. There's actually very little of the article worth saving, other than a minor mention that some have taken to using spurious claims to sell dogs of the pit bull type in the UK, which can actually best be covered in the section of the pit bull article on breed specific legislation. So that is where I would merge it, not the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article. oknazevad (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC) No Merger Are two AMAZON books https://www.amazon.co.uk/Staffordshire-Terriers-English-Canine-Library/dp/185736242X/ref=sr_1_1?ie= and https://www.amazon.com/Irish-Staffordshire-Bull-Terrier-Guide/dp/1526907267 other unreliable sources ? Dr Nobody (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Dr Nobody - please post your question at WP:RSN but be prepared to verify that each book was authored by a credible author and not just a breed enthusiast, that the books were not self-published and contain verifiable information based on the credibility of their cited sources. In other words, if they cite WP as a source, that's a big no-no. Also, refer back to my suggestions on your TP. Atsme✍🏻📧 16:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"Irish" Staffordshire section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

 Done. Many thanks, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC).

---

Atsme, I would like to propose new wording for the above section:

In the United Kingdom American Pit Bull Terriers are sometimes advertised as "Irish" Staffordshire Bull Terriers in an attempt to circumvent the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.  The appearance of the Irish Staffordshire, which is not recognised by any kennel club or breed registry, is attributed by the RSPCA to be contributing "to a rise in incidents of dog fighting", the editor of Dogs Today magazine described the breed as "complete fiction".

Sources

Bearing in mind the breed-specific legislation section already includes the first sentence above and talks about the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, I feel this new wording deals with all of the information without placing too much weight on topic with a single source. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC).

The merge was quite an uphill endeavor which is one of the reasons I was specific about not a breed, etc. I have no objection to your version. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

March 2019: Staffie as a pit bull

Hello BlueMoonlet, do you not feel the breed specific legislation section places WP:UNDUE weight on a subject that does not even pertain to this breed in the only jurisdiction mentioned? Also the Irish Staffie section given the sources state it is a euphemism for American Pit Bull Terrier?

Additionally, your edit reverted attempts to correct the spelling, the Use British English template has been on this article since 2013, wholly fair for a British subject.

Further, can I suggest you read MOS:SEEALSO, it advises against the "See also" section repeating links that appear in the article's navigation boxes. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC).

And further still, your contention that the Staffie can be considered a pit bull is clearly far from universal, British law prohibits such dogs and the Staffie is very much legal within Britain. If that reference is to be retained, it should be removed from the lead section as it is not an accurate summary of the breed, but a regional interpretation. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC).

I apologize for not checking my edit more carefully. My only intention was to restore the sourced content to the lead section. The changes to the rest of the article were unintentional.

Your link labeled "British law" is not relevant. That law prohibits dogs "known as the pit bull terrier," so it does not apply to the Staffie but rather to the APBT. To say that the Staffie is part of the pit bull family is not to say that it is dangerous, nor that it is or should be prohibited. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet, the Staffie is only defined as a pit bull within some North American juristictions, nowhere else (the closest I can find in a non-North American publication is the "Bull and Terrier, sometimes referred to as the 'Pit Dog'."). Further, not all of the references you keep including back up your statement, and all of those that do are American.

Looking at the page's history you added this statement on 2 Jun 15, since then multiple editors have tried to remove it and it has only been you that has consistently replaced it (5 Jun 15, 15 Jun 15, 25 Jun 15, 6 Jul 15, 12 Jul 15, 14 Jul 15, 28 Aug 15, 17 Sep 15, 24 Sep 15, 26 Oct 15, 19 Jul 16, 21 May 18, 19 Jul 18, 13 Mar 19, 20 Mar 19 and again today).

This does not belong in the article's lead (MOS:LEAD states "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight"), to do so is WP:UNDUE. Instead it belongs in the article's body, and it is there. Regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC).

Sources

Concur 100%. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I also support removal from the lead per UNDUE; adding that I restored the paragraph (Irish Staffordshire) resulting from the 22 November 2018 merge per consensus as noted in the TP banner. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Cavalryman V31: This topic was discussed at some length in 2015. I hope and trust that all who have registered their opinions so far (that is, Gareth Griffith-Jones and Atsme as well as yourself) will read the discussions at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/Archive 1#Contradiction with Pit Bull Terrier article - Are Staffy's Pits? and Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/Archive 1#Quality of this article, and will then let us know whether they retain the same views, and if so how they would argue against the points that were made in the past.

When people remove consensus information they don't like from an article, without making any coherent argument for doing so, it is perfectly in keeping with WP policy to revert their edits. Of course, we are now having a discussion, so this incidence does not fall under that description. I mention this in order to explain the past actions of mine that you have pointed out.

To summarize the argument, legal definitions are not important here, but rather the heritage of the breed. It seems abundantly clear that SBTs are descended from bull-type dogs that fought in pits. It may well be that SBTs have since been carefully bred to not have the temperament of a fighting dog, but that does not mean that they aren't pit bulls, any more than (hypothetically) a modern Golden Retriever's lack of birding instinct would mean it isn't a retriever. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are more highlights from the previous discussion:

• I really do sympathize with lovers of staffies who do not want their dogs to be associated with the stereotype of a vicious pit bull. However, the remedy should be to dispel the stereotype and to help the public realize that pit bulls are often very good dogs, not to deny (what seems to me) the manifestly true statement that staffies are a form of pit bull.
• The book I'm a Good Dog: Pit Bulls, America's Most Beautiful (and Misunderstood) Dog by Ken Foster contains the following quote: "For some lovers of the American pit bull terrier... 'pit bull' is embraced as shorthand for their breed. However, fans of the American Staffordshire terrier and English Staffordshire terrier are usually quick to tell you that their breeds are not pit bulls. To the general public, all three dogs are perceived as pit bulls, along with variations of the American bulldog, bull terriers, bullmastiffs, and even boxers, as well as mixes of these breeds." This highlights the fact that staffie lovers (such as yourself, I infer) do not like to be associated with the term "pit bull," but that such an association is in fact the basis for how people generally use the word. And if that is not how we determine what a word means, I don't know what is.

Argument by assertion (which is what I've seen so far in this discussion) does not stand up against citations to reliable sources (which I've provided). Furthermore, a single sentence in the lead section is hardly WP:Undue Weight. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it raises justifiable concern when we are faced with relentless insistence to identify the fighting dog ancestry of Staffordshire Bull Terriers with modern day pit bulls, especially in the lead, and that is venturing into WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT territory. The lead does not eliminate the breed's ancestry - it specifically mentions that it is a descendant of 19th century fighting dogs, which is accurate and compliant with DUE. What carries far more WEIGHT is not its ancestry; rather, it's what the breed registries accept as the breed standard per this AKC article (my bold underline for emphasis): "From his brawling past, the muscular but agile Staffordshire Bull Terrier retains the traits of courage and tenacity. Happily, good breeding transformed this former gladiator into a mild, playful companion with a special feel for kids." Pit bull is a type of dog, not a breed and we should not conflate them. Dog Time states "...but he is a breed unto himself with distinct physical characteristics that set him apart, including size and ear shape." This Animal Planet states: ...a dog originally bred for fighting to be so wonderful with kids, but the Staffordshire Bull Terrier really is. RS describe the dog as a terrier, not a pit bull. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet, devoting one of three sentences in the lead to a regionally specific classification is 100% UNDUE. Your new reference (which has not been introduced before now) simply affirms that this is a term used within North America.

No one here is arguning that it should not be included in the article, and it is included, but it should not be included in the lead as does not "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight". Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC).

Atsme: I am shocked that you accuse me of intransigence when we have hardly even begun to exchange our views. What you just wrote is the first move towards engagement between our views that I've seen so far, and it comes paired with a stated assumption of bad faith. Wow.

Cavalryman V31: If you look through the past edits that you meticulously compiled, you'll see that I'm a Good Dog was long a cited source in this article. It does appear to have fallen by the wayside during the periodic edit warring instigated over the years by people who popped up and removed this content for little stated reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This sneaky edit appears to be the culprit.

Your argument that we should discount reliable sources simply because I (an American) am citing mostly sources from America is hard to swallow. A reliable source is a reliable source. The fact that some reliable sources do not mention the identification of SBTs as pit bulls (but don't contradict it) does not invalidate reliable sources. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet, as I have said repeatedly, no-one is saying it should be excluded entirely, but to include it in the lead is UNDUE, it is not a broadly held classification for this breed but a regional grouping. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC).

The current wording mentions pit bulls only in the context of breed-specific legislation, which entirely misses the point. We are talking about what kinds of dogs these are, on a more fundamental level.

Let's review the sources that I originally submitted in 2015 (it appears that one was removed and two others were added since that time without my notice, but as you've pointed out, the additional sources are not very relevant):

• Merriam-Webster defines "pit bull" as "a dog... of any of several breeds... that was originally developed for fighting and is noted for strength, stamina, and tenacity" (wording slightly updated from what was cited in 2015). This clearly applies to SBTs, and this alone should put the onus on you to find sources denying that SBTs are pit bulls, and not just to rely on a perceived paucity or regionality of sources that say they are.
• A court in Colorado defined a "pit bull" as a dog of several breeds including SBTs. Please note that this is a statement about what is and isn't a pit bull, not specifically about whether there should be restrictions on this type of dog
• No less an authoritative (and dog-friendly) source than the ASPCA declares that the "pit bull class of dogs" includes the SBT. Here again, the wording here is clearly a declaration regarding what the ASPCA considers to be a pit bull, even though the purpose is to argue against BSL.
• The book I'm a Good Dog, which meets the WP:RS criteria for published material, declares that pit bulls are generally considered to denote a group of breeds including SBTs.

Not until Atsme posted yesterday have any sources been offered to support the opposing viewpoint. All three of Atsme's sources ([1][2][3]) reference the dog's fighting origin but don't use the term "pit bull." This does not amount to a declaration that SBTs are not pit bulls, just a decision not to mention the fact. Atsme remarks here that "Pit bull is a type of dog, not a breed and we should not conflate them." That is exactly the point I am making!

--BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet, the opposing viewpoint is yours alone at this point. 3 editors have disagreed with your position. I stand by what I said yesterday. You still haven't dropped the stick, so your comment about being shocked over what you referred to as an allegation of intransigence is, in retrospect, no longer an allegation. You have provided supporting evidence by refusing to accept local consensus. If you want wider community input, then by all means, call an RfC and be done with it. I will gladly accept whatever is agreed to by a wider consensus. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, Wikipedia is not a vote. Three people who say I don't like it is no reason for someone with reasonable and well-sourced arguments to stand down. Only very recently have you and your compatriots started to say something more substantial than "I don't like it," and I am attending to that. The aspersions you are casting are inappropriate and against the spirit of Wikipedia. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet, you calling everyone with a different point of view to your own “lovers of staffies who do not want their dogs to be associated with the stereotype of a vicious pit bull” is casting aspersions. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC).

Sources

British Commonwealth definitions

BlueMoonlet, let’s go through this again:

• Within Britain:
  • British law prohibits “any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier”
  • the Oxford dictionary defines the Pit bull (including the synonym of Pit bull terrier) as “a dog of an American variety of bull terrier, noted for its ferocity.”
  • the Cambridge dictionary defines the Pit bull terrier (including the synonym of Pit bull) as “a type of dog that is often considered to be aggressive and is used for fighting other dogs as entertainment.” It further clarified that in American English it is “a type of small dog with a wide chest and short hair, known for its strength and sometimes trained to fight.”
  • again, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is very much legal within Britain
  • ∴ within Britain the classification of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a pit bull is incorrect
• Within Australia:
  • New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria all restrict ownership of the American Pit Bull Terrier (and all include the synonym of Pit Bull Terrier)
  • the Macquarie dictionary defines the Pit bull terrier (including the synonym of “Pit Bull”) as “a stocky strong muscular dog with a short stiff coat usually of fawn and white colouring, originally bred for hunting and dog-fighting and widely regarded as aggressive and dangerous”
  • none of them restrict ownership of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier
  • ∴ within Australia the classification of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a pit bull is incorrect

Again, the classification of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a pit bull is restricted to North America, the article reflects this and the lead very definitely should not. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC).

Cavalryman V31, I don't know what you mean by "again." This is the first time that anybody has made this argument with anything resembling this level of careful sourcing. Up to now, I have seen nothing but your bare assertion that we are dealing with a regional variation, but now I see some evidence. Let me consider and come back to you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, the legal restrictions have always been beside the point, in my opinion. "Pit bull terrier" can be taken as a synonym for the APBT, so of course everyone agrees that bans on such a dog does not apply to SBTs. It's the dictionaries you've just cited that are of interest to me. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet, you are the one who continues to use the Colorado legal definition as an example. Here’s another for you, the Collins COBUILD dictionary gives a definition for pit bull as “A pit bull terrier or a pit bull is a very fierce kind of dog. Some people train pit bull terriers to fight other dogs. It is illegal to own one in the UK.” Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC).

And another from the Chambers dictionary, “pit bull terrier noun a large breed of bull terrier, originally developed for dogfighting. Often shortened to pit bull.” Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC).

Main image

I think a more illustrative main image is needed. This current image (File:Staffordshire Bull Terrier "Chaman".jpg) is not very illustrative, the dog has his back to the camera. I recommend this ones below (or similars). Adventurous36 (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

No, Adventurous36, you are wrong. The correct image in the info' box must be a four-legged sideways stance. Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Adventurous36, I agree with Gareth Griffith-Jones, the current image is the best of those available. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC).

Oppose suggested changes. I will try to get a good profile shot of a male and female (representative of the breed standard) at the next AKC show I'm able to attend. If I can't get it done, I'll ask around to see who can oblige. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I found the following images on Pixabay, all with a CC0 license:

• 
• 
• 
• 

I really like the white stacked dog (side profile) for the infobox - maybe with the 3/4 pose below the infobox. The other pictures, especially the puppy, one of the blacks from either gallery, and the brindle in Adventurous36 gallery would add a nice touch as a right side lineup or as a gallery in the article. AKC Breed Standard says Red, fawn, white, black or blue,or any of these colors with white. Any shade of brindle or any shade of brindle with white. Black-and-tan or liver color to be disqualified. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Good choice! The two images below are the best in my opinion. Thank you. Adventurous36 (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• 
• 

Not to be confused with...

I think the Template message below needs a complement Adventurous36 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Bull Terrier.

My suggestion:

Not to be confused with Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier.

Adventurous36 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier

This breed is the old pre 1948 standard of the Kennel Club SBT and as there are hundreds if not thousands spread throughout the Commonwealth. They are not APBT being several inches shorter with a different shaped head resembling a coal scuttle not a brick. They are also lighter and smaller then the AST or the American Bully and more athletic than the short legged SBT Kennel Club version. May I request this section closed to deletion to prevent personal bias.

see http://www.staffordmall.com/1935standard.htm

The dog writer David Hancock has written a book (Sporting terriers)and several articles mentioning the "Irish Staffie". A number of his previously published articles available on his website include "Saluting the Staffie", "Terriers of Ireland" and "Terrorising the Terrier". Unfortunately he is the only author I can find who makes mention of these dogs and he provides little actual information about their appearance. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC).

Sources

@Cavalryman V31 and Atsme: As you change the header names and layout of this article, please note that there are several redirects that point to headings WITHIN the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article that will need to be updated. The ones I know about are Irish Bull Terrier, Irish staffordshire bull terrier, and Irish Staffie, but there may be others. Nomopbs (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Y Good catch, Nomopbs. The first went to the subsection where the title had been changed, so I changed it back. There was no change for the 2nd, and 3rd needed a lower case fix. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: It easier to change the forwarder to match what you want the article's header to be. Nomopbs (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Should we nominate for deletion the Portuguese version of "Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier"?

(Not sure where I should put this topic, but I've chosen here because it's the closest thing in English Wikipedia to the topic.)

There is yet another ISBT article here [4] which should be deleted on the basis that it's all bunk (false). I don't know if an English-language nomination to delete on Portuguese wiki will work. If anyone knows, or if someone can do this, please do so. Below are the reasons the article should be deleted. Feel free to use some or all if you can somehow nominate for deletion the Portuguese article.

• The Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not a breed.
• The English Wikipedia article "Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier" was deleted because it wasn't a breed (nor notable as a term).
  • Talk page: [5]
  • Last version of the old deleted article: [6]
• Here is the WP:RS news article mentioning that the breed is not real: [7]
• Here is a Defra publication mentioning that the ISBT is codename for 'pit bull terrier': [8]
• The article uses just three citations, repeating. The first citation [9] no longer exists and even the Wayback Machine version [10] looks no different than all the other self-published ISBT breed descriptions around the internet. The second citation [11] is jibberish. The third citation [12] is on a self-published website that makes disclaimers about its accuracy on the About page [13].
• Some of the not-used and/or non-WP:RS citations claim the ISBT is recognized in four kennel clubs (Dog Registry of America, Inc, Intercontinental Kennel Club, Irish Staffordshire Federation, United National Kennel Club), none of which seem to have an internet presence mentioning the ISBT (and some having no internet presence at all).
• The original webpage for Ed Reid, the owner of the Intercontinental Kennel Club, the registry most associated with the ISBT name, is no longer online [14]. The Wayback Machine does offer older versions of the website, none of those which I checked actually mention the ISBT.
• There are message board discussions about ISBT, pit bulls, Reid, and his registry here [15] and here [16].

— Nomopbs (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Potential GA

Notice to the most recent article watchers - Dwanyewest, Calvaryman, GG-J - just letting you know that I'll be copy editing, and making some updates/additions/clarifications to the article today so don't be concerned about the activity. I will add an "in use" template on the page, and ask that while the template is up, please wait until I've removed it before you make any edits, and if you have any concerns, let's please discuss it here on the TP. I would like to prime this article as a potential GA and possibly DYK so whoever wants to get involved in either or both of the processes let me know. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

PS: I just tweaked the lead, and will work on the History section later, so if after you proof-read it, and find any discrepencies, etc., please discuss it here. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Pit bull?

Whilst heading for a WP:GAC review, there is a section that refers to the staffie as a "pitbull". The reference is the ASCPA website, which states: "Regulated breeds typically comprise the “pit bull” class of dogs, including American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and English Bull Terriers."

That might simply be a matter of personal phrasing used by the no-name author. You would be unwise to state that "In the United States they are classified as pit bull types" based on that one web-site reference. Does any legislation in the US actually classify the staffie as a pitbull? If not, the term should be removed from the article. Good Article status warrants good quality referencing. William Harris • (talk) • 09:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to our attention, William Harris. I have adjusted the wording to more accurately reflect the source. The ASPCA is a highly reputable source, and in this particular article, they explain why they believe breed-specific legislation does more harm than good. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

From the reading I did during the above pit bull discussion, it appeared that only some jurisdictions in the US and Canada place restrictions on the Staffie, can I suggest we change the current wording from “around the world” to “North American” just list the two countries? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC).

Yes, Cavalryman V31. Exactly my thoughts. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It just needs to be cited to a RS. What did you have in mind? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I am still not convinced that a statement by an American organisation regarding city laws in the US can be generalised into "A number of federal and municipal governments around the world have placed restrictions on the ownership of the "pit bull class" of dogs......" Here is something you may be able to use, it relates only to the US, but it is directly quoted and would need to be reworded:

"It has been estimated that as of 2009, restrictions regarding ownership of dozens of breeds were in place in more than 300 jurisdictions in the US. Most, but not all, breed-specific ordinances in the US include with the term ‘pit bull’ the American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, and Staffordshire bull terrier, along with dogs that, based upon their appearance, are deemed to resemble these breeds."

Additionally, second paragraph last sentence. The AKC view on breed specific legislation does not warrant a place in the lede because it is off-topic - is there nothing more we can say about the Staffie here? William Harristalk 08:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Rather than provide specifics, the lead is summarized and I included the country names rather than saying "world-wide". I also moved the last sentence to the relevant section. Thanks for pointing that out. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

With the exception of the KC, I question putting any other Kennel Club recognition into the lead, if the AKC why not the CKC, the ANKC, the NZKC etc? I think the last sentence should be dropped altogether. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC).

If you have the sources that have published similar information to what KC & AKC have published we can certainly add them in the Recognition section. The only reason AKC is in the lead is to distinguish the Staffordshire as a separate breed from the American Staffordshire Terrier which has its own article, so if there exists a Canadian Staffie, an Australian & New Zealand Staffie that need to be distinguished from Staffordshire Bull Terriers, then yes, we need to include them in the lead. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:53, July 9, 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, I support the inclusion of the AKC recognition within the article (I added it) just not the lead, above the lead is already the distinguish template. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC).

Cavalryman, WP:DONTLIKEIT is not a convincing reason to remove material from the lead. It has been there for nearly a month now, and the only thing that has changed is the article is now a GAC. I may be wrong, but I doubt that an RfC will return the results you want, but if you are that determined to have it removed from the lead, I can withdraw this GAC if your intention is to call an RfC to resolve the issue once and for all. Is that what you want? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Whoa, as per your request I have taken a back seat and been watching most supportively the excellent work you have been doing, I am now giving you my opinion on a single sentence, if you WP:DONTLIKEIT so be it but I see no reason for AKC recognition to be in the lead. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC).

@Atsme: You are acting like you own the article. You do not. See WP:OWNERSHIP. Just because something has been on an article for "over a month", doesn't mean that it should "remain thataway forever". For example, I never looked at the BSL section of the Staffie article until today, so just because no one else saw the problems with it that I saw today, doesn't mean I need to "discuss" my changes with you, or anyone, before making my changes. See WP:BOLD. Nomopbs (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, but do either of you realize that this article is a GAC, and that a reviewer has accepted it? Could you not have waited until the reviewer had completed his review before jumping in here at the last minute to suggest changes, and then launch PAs against me because I disagreed with you? Cavalryman, thank you for your comment on my TP - enjoy your new gift. Nomopbs, please settle down. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Very happy to wait until after the process. And thanks. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC).

@Atsme: You have missed the most obvious source of BSL specifically listing Staffordshire Bull Terriers, while at the same time misunderstanding the citation you added to the article. Go to Breed-specific legislation and you will find "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" mentioned for the 14 countries Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Romania, Singapore, Spain and the United States... plus 12 of the United States of Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and New York. If you go to the new citation you added [17] you will find not only links to the seven countries you think are the only ones, while missing the obvious link titled "Please see a full list of these countries" which links to the "mother lode" list [18] which lists BSL in 52 countries. Now if that ain't "worldwide", I don't know what is. — Nomopbs (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I did miss it, Nomopbs - and forgot to sign my last comment. Too many interruptions while I was trying to focus on this review. Thanks for correcting. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding, Nomopbs - I don't agree with your removal of large blocks of important encyclopedic information regarding the positions of various notable organizations. Please discuss on the TP before any further BRD while this GA review is in process. Thank you. 21:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: I edited the section in the article. Made it short and sweet. Basically just covers where is Staffie IN or OUT of BSL. No frills. Straight to the point. See main article for BSL for further discussion. I think you'll like the new version. — Nomopbs (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: WTF!?!? You didn't even read it! Try again! — Nomopbs (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I did read it, and a "no frills" BSL is not compliant with NPOV. The views of notable organizations belong in the article, and it's important for our readers to know why certain dogs were included on that list. There is opposition to such legislation, and we include it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, here's my points:

• The first sentence is a compounded sentence creating WP:SYNTH. The ASPCA citation did not lump those other breeds in with the pit bulls. The ASPCA article mentioned the other breeds separately. Combining them together like this is not only WP:SYNTH but is irrelevant to the subject of Staffordshire Bull Terriers.
• Sentence two is irrelevant to the Staffie article. It is also an advocacy opinion. See WP:NOTADVOCACY.
• Sentence three is an "excuse" and is also advocacy and part of a debate that has no place in this article.
• Sentence four is completely irrelevant to the article.
• Sentence five is fine, but in your haste to revert my edit, you didn't even re-edit the contributions I made to that sentence, such as the wikilinks to other articles.

A better rendition of the section would be to cover where Staffordshire Bull Terrier and BSL come together, such as WHERE is Staffie included, where is staffie excluded. The "why" is opinion and would only cover one side of an argument and anything you write here will be too limiting to cover the entirety of WHY Staffies are not included in breed prohibited lists for UK, Aus & NZ.

Use this version instead:

Though a number of federal and municipal governments around the world[18] have placed restrictions on the ownership of the pit bull class of dogs and typically lists several breeds including the Staffordshire Bull Terrier,[19] Staffies are excluded from the BSL breed lists in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.[5]

In 2018 PETA lobbied the British Parliament to have the Staffordshire Bull Terrier included in the list of dog breeds prohibited by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but the idea was rejected by Parliament. The RSPCA, the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust, Blue Cross and the Battersea Dogs & Cats Home all objected to the proposed ban.[20]

Nomopbs (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Good, you fixed the first sentence, and separated the breeds as I should've done in the first place. Y

There was no OR, I mistakenly grabbed the wrong reference. The change you made was an improvement. It appears that section is ready to go. Y ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Or flip the sentence around: "Although Staffordshire Bull Terriers are excluded from the BSL breed lists in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, a number of federal and municipal governments around the world have placed restrictions on the ownership of the pit bull class of dogs and list several breeds, specifically including the Staffordshire Bull Terrier." Nomopbs (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with advocacy - this article is not the place to debate BSL. Everything we've included in the BSL section is relevant, and we do not omit relevant information, especially what breeds are considered to be aligned with "pit bull types", and the opposing views of notable associations & organizations like the AKC, RSPCA, and PETA. Your suggestion is to eliminate information, and present a single view. I see no benefit to our readers in doing that way. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: If you want to include a citation and accompanying text about why Staffies were excluded from the list of prohibited dogs in UK for Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, or why they have remained off the list, or why they're not on the list in Australia or New Zealand, then go right ahead. But in the USA, Staffies have always been lumped in with all other pit bull breeds, and there were no attempts to exclude Staffies at inception of a BSL, nor any attempts to remove Staffies from the list of pit bull breeds. There have been attempts to remove ALL pit bull breeds (or all breeds) by getting BSL repealed in a jurisdiction, but that is relevant to BSL, not Staffies. So I repeat, citing any American articles about BSL in the United States is IRRELEVANT to the subject of Staffordshire Bull Terriers, but IS relevant to the subject of BSL (and belongs on THAT article). The sentences beginning "In the US, the ASPCA has..." and "There are some municipalities in the US..." and "AKC considers BSL a slippery slope..." are ALL IRRELEVANT to the topic of Staffies, even if they are relevant to the topic of BSL. The fact that there is a heading in the Staffie article titled "Breed-specific legislation" does not give license to go off on a tangent. And, BTW, your WP:SYNTH is still there at the juncture of pit bulls and on into other non pit bull breeds. — Nomopbs (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

To state the obvious, this is an article about a breed of dog, and such articles tend to attract the attention of passionate dog lovers. This article is going through a GA review, which should be an opportunity for editors to collaborate and cooperate and move forward together. This is not the place for aggressive, confrontational interactions between editors. The tone of this conversation is not appropriate. As an administrator, I urge the editors interested in this article to cooperate with one another with the goal of finding consensus. If the aggressive behavior does not stop, I will issue specific personal warnings, and will block of necessary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Never heard of GA review. Will read. But pardon me for not participating in something I'd never heard of while just toolin' along with my usual edits when I saw something amiss. — Nomopbs (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Just avoid overly aggressive and confrontational interactions with your fellow editors, and all will be well, Nomopbs. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomopbs, Cavalryman V31 - what about the following change to the last sentence in the lead: Staffies first arrived in North America in the 1880s but it wasn't until 1974 that the American Kennel Club (AKC) recognized the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a breed; not to be confused with the American Staffordshire Terrier which is a distinctly separate breed.?? I think we should keep AKC in the lead since it is the largest purebred registry in the world but we don't have to mention BSL in the lead since it doesn't apply to Staffies in the UK, Australia and New Zealand - there's a section about it in the body. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Happy with that. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC).

That's better than the current sentence. However, I don't understand why you have no citations in the lede to support the text there. — Nomopbs (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomopbs, per MOS:CITELEAD it is not necessary to cite the lead. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC).

Excerpts from MOS:CITELEAD: "The lead must conform to verifiability ... the lead will USUALLY repeat information that is in the body ... there is not an exception to citation requirements specific to leads ... The presence of citations in the introduction is ... not prohibited."

Items in lede which either do NOT repeat in the body, or they do repeat in the body but have no citation there either:

• "that was developed in Staffordshire, England and northern parts of Birmingham" - Not mentioned in body of article
• "The breed first originated by crossing the Bulldog and Black and Tan Terrier" - Said as fact in lede but mentioned as "one of two theories" in the body
• "a breed that "emerged as one of the most successful and enduring."" - Quotation has no citation in lede or body
• "popular family pet and companion dog" - I don't see any wording or citation in body to support this phrase in the lede
• "The Staffie's early association as a fighting dog was the biggest obstacle to overcome" - Not mentioned in the body in any form
• "the breed eventually earned recognition as "a wonderful family pet"" - Not supported by the citation given (the UK breed standard) and not mentioned in the body
• " Staffies first arrived in North America in the 1880s" - not mentioned in the body

— Nomopbs (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I added the 3 instances you mentioned (re: what was worded in the lede but not mentioned in the body text) and restored the citations to the lede that I initially removed at the suggestion of the GA reviewer. I appreciate your efforts in helping to make this article the best it can be, but for future reference, it would prove far more helpful if, instead of you acting the part of a "GA reviewer", you simply cite the sources and add the few words that are in the lede but not in the body text without making any major changes. We don't need 2 GA reviewers. Regarding your concern about the following: "The Staffie's early association as a fighting dog was the biggest obstacle to overcome" - Not mentioned in the body in any form." If you will read the cited sources, (which we are not required to cite for each sentence) you will see that the information you challenged is verifiable. As editors our job is to provide a summary - in our own words (with engaging prose) - of what the sources have published, and in the instance you mentioned, the source actually states Despite its early function, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is known as a wonderful family pet. and Because of its early association with fighting it was, for some time, difficult to get recognition for the breed...; therefore, the prose - The Staffie's early association as a fighting dog was the biggest obstacle to overcome - summarizes what was stated in the source. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: I appreciate your recent additions of citations, and your explanations of content and citations. That was all that was needed. I do NOT, however, appreciate the pattern of WP:OWN, climaxing with your latest accusation of me "acting the part of a GA reviewer". So you don't want me making changes AND you don't want me making suggestions? If you nominated the article for GA for the purpose of getting it reviewed "by others", then I fail to see why you rebuff all recommendations whether they appear in article as edits, on Talk page as suggestions or explanations, or within GA review process. Even when you make suggested changes you rebuke the suggester. I, for one, have had enough. I will continue later to review the article (maybe after you're done with your project) and make edits where appropriate and within Wikipedia guidelines. — Nomopbs (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Your accusations are unfounded, and I don't appreciate you gaslighting me. Cullen328 may be able to explain how a GAR works since you still don't understand. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources

@ Nomopbs, I recommend that, as you are a new user, you must leave the Good Article process to continue without further disruption. Please "walk away" and leave it to those who have worked so hard on this project. Your gaslighting is apparent and is deplorable. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• I have more or less concluded the GA review now, and will look into the issue of the name. I agree that there should be no info in the intro not found in the article body, but citations are usually left out of the intro, and even though it isn't prohibited to add them, they are usually discouraged during WP:featured article reviews, unless they support controversial info. In a case like this, the main writer should decide. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 01:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Far too long since I reviewed one of your articles! I'll have a look soon, and though I find them very interesting, I'm not exactly a dog expert, so William Harris is free to chime in here if he has anything to add (I saw he already commented on the talk page). Some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• I see some citations are used in the intro that art not used in the article body; the intro should not have unique info, and therefore no unique citations, as it is only supposed to summarise the article body. Therefore, the intro doesn't need citations for non-controversial info either. Y
• There are a few duplinks in the article body, they can be highlighted with this script (easy to install):[19] Y
• "the dogs weigh 29 to 37 pounds (13 to 17 kg) and the bitches" Is it common terminology to only call the males "dogs"?Y
• WP:Galleries without context are generally discouraged, so I'd suggest removing it, and if any of the images are important, move them to where they would make sense in the article. Y

Still seeing a gallery? FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I added context via gallery title, and hidden captions naming colors, & showing cropped vs uncropped ears Y

Interesting, never seen such hidden captions before. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• The infobox image has three different source links, only the first appears to be correct.Y

Still seeing multiple links to different photos under source? FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Y

Removed wikilinks in info box (if that's what you meant)

I meant on the file page, I removed them myself with this edit[20], so feel free to add the wikilinks you removed back. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know you were an (A) on Commons. Kewl. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Some of the sections, especially the first ones, seem rather short, is there no more info to add there?Y
• The sourcing of this[21] image seems rather dubious. Y
• Likewise with this[22] one, how has it been established that the author is "unknown"? Y
• "Common nicknames Stafford & Staffie" I wonder if a comma would be better than "&" for clarity. Especially since one other breed mentioned even has the word "and" in its name.Y
• What sets this breed apart from other similar breeds? Y See section Popularity (again)19:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• "Life span Over 12 years" This should also be stated under health, with source.Y
• Any reason why you switch from the full name to the nickname halfway down the article? You even switch between adjacent sentences. Would probably be best to be consistent. Y - see reason below
• You also seem to switch randomly between KC and Kennel Club. Y - see reason below
• You use both ise and ize endings; since this is a UK related article, best to stick with ise.Y
• I think it would be better if the history section was chronological; the Early protection covers a time before that covered in Recognition, so should logically come first. Y

Arranged chronologically in subsections. 12:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• "subject of Sir Percy FitzPatrick’s book Jock of the Bushveld." Could give date for the book.Y
• "not to be confused with the American Staffordshire Terrier which is a distinctly separate breed." Not really stated outside the intro, and could use some elaboration,. What is the relation between the two, and why the same name? Y
• "In the US, the ASPCA" What is that? Anything to link? Could also be spelled out, like you do with most other organisations. Y
• You also use the abbreviation AKC before spelling it out. ?? See lede where it's spelled out.

Personally, I also spell out terms at first mention outside the intro, but I'm not sure what the guidelines say, so no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• "In 2018 PETA lobbied the British Parliament to have the Staffordshire Bull Terrier added to the list" Why? I thought they were for animal rights? Y
• "James Hinks of Birmingham, England was founder of the Bull Terrier." Why is this info about a different breed relevant in the intro here? Also, he is not linked outside the intro. Y check it now...I've clarified the Hinks connection whereas before, it was a dubious disconnect. I should have been more attentive - apologies.
• "a breed that "emerged as one of the most successful and enduring." According to who? Also the quote could maybe be paraphrased or repeated in the article body, or moved there. Y
• "It wasn't until", "but it wasn't". Contractions are discouraged (done at least three times here).Y

Discussion

Hey, there FM!! Yes, it has been a while. I was quite pleased to see that you took the review. Quick answer to your dog—-bitch question. It's standard terminology used by breeders and at dog shows. After the dog & bitch classes have been judged, the winners of each division go back in for Winners Dog and Winners Bitch. Oxford defines "dog" as "The male of an animal of the dog family, or of some other mammals such as the otter." I'll get to work on the other issues. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• I removed the citations that weren't needed in the lead, but 2 still remain because they are likely to be challenged. Fn#1 is cited to the same source that is used in the body text, but Fn#3 is from a single source cited only to the lead. It's contains a quote about breed specific legislation that aren't in the sources cited in the body text.
• The images are properly licensed. They are old images (84 yrs) so they're in the public domain. It's highly probable that the photog has long since died.
• Yes, they are short so I combined 2 of them, which tightens things up a little. Regarding both temperament and health, we're limited to a generalization of what's expected in that breed. Anything beyond that speaks to individualism.
• Made a few modifications per William's suggestions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for being sidetracked, FunkMonk. The article was stable when I made the GAC nom, and I've never had anything like this crop up during a GA review. I responded to what I believed to be valid suggestions from the other 3 editors, and hope they will allow you to continue the review as an uninvolved reviewer making a determination. I invite you to look at their suggestions, and make your own determination as if they were participants in the review. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems like that discussion has gone off the rails, I'll leave the issue for last, after I've tried to get an overview of the situation. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I remain optimistic that you will be able to continue the review uninterrupted. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have stalled as soon as I commented there, so I guess so, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

In your list of issues above, would you be so kind as to strike the ones that were completed to your satisfaction?

Unless I add a further comment below a point, I'm satisfied with the points you've ticked and answered (striking out is rather uncommon, I see it as superfluous). FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Still seeing multiple links to different photos under source? - I've removed the dupe wikilinks in the image box.
2. Re:links in lede - had to restore the citations as the material was challenged

I've commented on the talk page, the editor there does not seem to be familiar with GA/FAC. In any case, it is not a big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Round 3 - reasons

1. Re:Gallery - added context via gallery title, and hidden captions naming colors, & showing cropped vs uncropped ears
2. Re:material cited in lede not seen in body - fixed, may not be verbatim
3. What sets this breed apart from other similar breeds? - see Popularity section

I rather mean physically; it would appear to me that much of the description would also apply to many similar dogs? So what makes it physically distinct from them? FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Any reason why you switch from the full name to the nickname - fixed; use full name when specific to breed registry, club names, and referencing titles, and Staffie when generically describing the dog.
2. Re: The Kennel Club vs KC - fixed

• Final round

1. Ok, I've clarified the James Hinks connection. Pretty sure I fixed all the izes to ises. Re-ordered the sections for fluidity, expanded/clarified where I could without getting too FA-like vs GA-like. As for acronyms vs spelling out, I created sub-sections for KC & AKC in the Recognition section, and added a few more breed associations in the lead of the Recognition section. I've added a Y in your list above along with a few comments. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking good, you just added one more ize ending in a section header though, " Unrecognized breed"! I wonder if there is anything on physical differences from other breeds? Will get back to the nickname issue later. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

FM, I never would have recognized it if you had not recognised it. 😂 Re: your question: physical differences from other breeds? Not quite sure what you're reaching for? Nickname issue...I realise your goal is consistency but consider the following: my useage of the nickname vs the formal full name is somewhat equivalent to using uppercase President vs lower case president. I used Staffordshire Bull Terrier when the formal name was appropriate, and Staffie when appropriate to be informal. However, not unlike my use of ize vs ise, there may have been a little slippage which is an early sign of being kennel blind; i.e., my splay-footed, bug-eyed, wire haired dog with the overbite is tomorrow's Westminster Best In Show. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

On the physical differences; what sets this one apart from, say, an American Pit Bull Terrier or an American Staffordshire Terrier? And I'm still unsure why the American Staffordshire has the similar name? As for the talk page discussion, I'll let it play out and read through it so that I can better understand what's going on. Strange how the article is suddenly attracting so many editors... Haven't seen anything like it since I peer reviewed Balfour Declaration, which one might think is a much more contentious article... FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Breeders develop new breeds via outcrosses and line breeding, etc. to improve upon or breed out certain inheritable traits/genetic qualities. The American Staffordshire Terrier is the result of breeders in the US wanting a bigger, heavier dog than the Staffie, so they outcrossed Staffies to larger, big boned dogs (molosser) to develop a new standard and purpose. AST's are heavier and taller than the English Staffies (AST males are 18 to 19 inches at the shoulder vs SBT at 14 to 16 inches). It probably had something to do with gaining advantage in pit fighting back in the day. The appearances of the Staffie vs American Staffie would probably be along the same lines as a Giant Schnauzer vs a Schnauzer vs a Miniature Schnauzer but more subtle. Breed standards would also provide some of the differences. Example, AKC allows both cropped or uncropped ears on AST whereas Staffies must be uncropped. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I think it warrants a mention then that the American breed is (partially?) descended from the British one, now it reads like they have nothing in common but the name. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

We have a not to be confused with at the top of the page. I recently removed mention of that breed in the lede because the American Staffordshire Terrier is arguably the same as the American Pit Bull Terrier with the exception that the APBT is UKC registered and not recognized by AKC, and the AST is recognized by AKC but not UKC. AKC says of the AST: "Whatever the AmStaff’s true genetic composition might be, we are certain that working-class Brits with an interest in blood sports combined the stocky build and punishing jaws of old-style Bulldogs with the innate courage and “gameness” of terriers to create bull-type terrier breeds." AKC eventually recognized AST and SBT as two separate breeds. According to Britannica: "Authorities differ on whether the American Staffordshire Terrier and the pit bull are the same breed. The AKC and the Continental Kennel Club separate them, whereas the United Kennel Club combines both within the American Pit Bull Terrier breed." Staffordshire Bull Terriers were originally developed in England and have maintained their purebred status there and in the US. The ancestral connection (especially in dog years) is too far back and mention of it would only cause confusion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, this seems like pretty significant info. To me, and probably many other unfamiliar readers, it actually creates far more confusion that the issue of two different breeds with the same name is not addressed. The first thing that comes to mind is "what's the connection", and looking throughout the article to find the answer. If there is a controversy of whether the two are the same or not, that should definitely be mentioned (just like possible synonymies between animal taxa are always discussed in their articles). FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

See this article for appearances. In looking at the WP article, American Staffordshire Terrier, (which needs updating/fact checking), the commonality is the Bulldog x Terrier ancestry. Trying to connect the two is a bit complicated because timelines vary, much of the information is based on anecdotal reports dating back to the 1880s+/-, and it is difficult to find corroborating accounts. There's also this, but not everything falls quietly into place. Tomorrow's another day. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The segues weren't easy but I somehow managed to keep the flow. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Much clearer for me with the added context, thanks. Now, on to the talk page discussion... FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the responses to the points I've made, but since there is currently a lot of editing and discussion going on, I'll wait until it settles, so we can reach a stable version. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk, the last standing challenge on the article TP is about the omission of rat-baiting from the history. I may not be holding my mouth right when I type in the words for a Google or Bing search but I've been unable to find any RS that state Staffordshire Bull Terriers were used for rat-baiting. In fact, the closest I came to anything other than bear & bull baiting was a recent article about an isolated incident of illegal badger hunting. I've put in a request for 2 sources that support rat-baiting with Staffordshire Bull Terriers, so I guess now we wait. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(watching) @Atsme: I'm not sure it's precisely the same thing, but it UK the word more commonly used is (was, I gues) ratting; see [23] for various sources.

Great article though . Our Stella would be proud of you. Well, she'd doubtless prefer sausages, but that's the way of things  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, SN - so happy to see you here!! You are among my favorite editors when it comes to collaboration, yet we've had too few engagements in that regard. Thank you for pointing to the books, and bringing the term to my attention. Rat-baiting was originally in the lede, then I changed it to "vermin control", and recently it went back to rat-baiting because vermin-control was challenged, then replaced with bull-baiting which appeared to be more prominent. Perhaps it should have said "vermin destruction" per the following source. I added ratting back to the lead, and a note about badger-baiting as a clandestine blood sport in the subsection Early protection. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: Thanks very much, you're very kind. I'm sorry if I was jumping into to controversy with my suggestion: I see on the talk page that you've been mildly trolled over it for a while now. Apologies, but I stopped reading that TLDR sometime ago...! ——SerialNumber54129 11:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk, aside from the typical minor IP/newbie drive-by, all is quiet on the western front. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Great, I'll have a look at the latest round of comments on the talk page soon, then I'll see if I can suggest how to progress, if anything is even needed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk - just an FYI, added rat-baiting based on suggestion by Serial Number 54129 - see my comment above. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Ok, per Cavalryman V31's points on the talk page, I do agree that a lot of space is devoted to Hinks, without it being clear what he has to do with this particular breed. I do think Hinks warrants a mention in the article, though, since the sources about this breed do seem to cover him. I don't think he warrants an entire subheader at least, and the text about him could be cut down (and cut parts moved to articles about the relevant breeds). On a similar note, "of Birmingham, England" is irrelevant to the intro, as it has nothing to do with the subject of this article (more relevant details about this breed are not mentioned, while that is).
• The line "first arrived in North America in the mid to late 1800s" does not match the mid 1880s date stated in the intro.
• Cavalryman's issue that the line "The Staffie's early origins as a fighting dog made it difficult to gain recognition as a breed for entry in the KC's breed registry" is unsupported by the refs seems to be unfounded, as the first ref says "Because of its early association with fighting it was, for some time, difficult to get recognition for the breed and it was not until the 1930's that the KC recognised the breed", and the second says "Although offshoots of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier were given recognition by the English Kennel Club as early as the late 1800’s, it was 1935 before this breed received the same honor, primarily due to it’s fighting history.".
• Ratting should be mentioned in the article body with source, not just the intro. Otherwise the intro seems to reflect the article body, but could perhaps also include a bit on its temperament and health, since the intro is supposed to summarise all important aspects of the article.
• Still one "ize" left, "AKC would not recognize".
• I am unsure what Nomopbs's remaining points are, but they are welcome to list them here for evaluation. But intros do not need citations for uncontroversial info, as they are only supposed to summarise the article body, where the citations are located.
  • @FunkMonk: I'm putting my response on the Staffie Talk page. [24] — Nomopbs (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd like to settle all grievances in an orderly fashion on the talk page, point by point, before I close the nomination, so it doesn't disintegrate into an edit war afterwards. Hopefully everyone will be satisfied. This shouldn't be harder to solve than the Balfour Declaration article was. FunkMonk (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Just continue whatever you're doing without me. — Nomopbs (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Pibull was the original UK name of the SBTC before Kennel Club recognition however this should not be confused with the American Pitbull Terrier which was developed to be larger by interbreeding with Bulldog type dogs later in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

History section

Sorry to throw a spammer in the works but I am very worried the history section is becoming horribly confused and misguided, in part because the AKC website is (against all other sources) mistaken about the origins of the breed.

Early protection

There is no context here, it needs to talk about the rise in popularity of dog fighting over bull baiting and the corresponding development of the lighter Bull and Terrier from the Old English Bulldog before describing the 1835 act.

James Hinks

Hinks is horribly misrepresented as the creator of this breed. All of the sources (literally every one) less the AKC website reflect this.

James Hinks developed the Bull Terrier by crossing the Bull and Terrier with the English White Terrier (later other breeds were added) whilst the original (uncrossed) type was maintained in the Black Country, these became the modern Staffie. Hinks does not deserve his own own subsection in this article, just a mention, and the AKC website should be discounted as a credible source on the breed’s history.

I know it sounds pompous but I much prefer my version of the history of the breed. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC).

I thoroughly researched the history, CM. Everything stated in the current History section is cited and verifiable. What part are you disputing? It is doubtful that the KC would misrepresent Hinks, and they refer to him as the founder, and so does AKC, the largest purebred breed registry in the world. Looking at the this revision, I'm not seeing what you're challenging. To begin, history that goes back to the early 1800s has little if any direct genetic affect on a 21st century descendant, especially considering the outcrosses that created the Staffie. Furthermore, there are other books and sources in addition to both KC and AKC, such as this history, and the references included in the WP article, James Hinks. As for pit fighting dogs, we have Dog fighting. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The KC page states “When the founder of the Bull Terrier (bolding mine) James Hinks added other breeds like the Collie to change the head shape of that breed, devotees of the original type of bull terrier cross remained loyal to their preferred type.” The CKC and UKC make no mention of Hinks whilst the ANKC and NZKC make the distinction of Hinks being the creator of the Bull Terrier, not the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I have cited with in-text attribution what RS say. Perhaps you are not fully understanding the outcrossing and changes in the shape of the body and head that has been credited to Hinks? Yes, he founded the Bull Terrier, but he also modified the appearance of that breed when he outcrossed to the other breeds. The devotees to the Bull Terrier foundation lines and appearance stuck with it whereas Hinks kept developing what we know now as the Staffie. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

With respect, that is not what th majority of the RS state, they state Hinks crossed the progenitors of the Staffie with the English White Terrier to create the modern Bull Terrier. It is worthy of inclusion only to explain the difference (fork) between breeds. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, with respect I do not think this has been satisfactorily addressed, at the moment the KC is being misattributed on the involvement of Hinks, and we are using a single source against every other RS. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC).

Please be more specific - it would prove helpful if you will quote the part that is misattributed, and maybe suggest what you think it should say. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I have above, the KC does not attribute Hinks with any involvement with the Staffordshire, only the Bull Terrier. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

What I wrote and attributed to both AKC & KC: James Hinks is credited for perfecting the foundation bloodlines of bull terriers that led to the modern Staffie. What is misattributed, CM? I'm not understanding the issue here. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

That is not what the KC website says, they say Hinks crosses Bull and Terriers to create the Bull Terrier, not that he had any influence over the modern Staffordshire. The AKC is the only source that makes this claim, against every other KC and RS. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC).

I'm sure all the breed registries are citing Hinks as a way to distance the breed from its dog fighting heritage with Mallen et al in the 1930's. Maybe the evidence to that truth is that Birmingham (Hinks) is in neither Staffordshire OR Black Country. However, it was Mallen et al who accomplished getting the breed into the registries, all the while continuing with their dog fighting. Ironic, but real history. — Nomopbs (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Only one breed registry claims Hinks had any influence over the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the AKC. The KC, the ANKC and the NZKC all mention Hinks as the creator of the Bull Terrier only, and they do so to explain the distinction between and separation point of the two breeds. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC).

CM, I think the most important bit of information you may be overlooking is the fact that (the first name requested, "Original Bull Terrier", was rejected by the Kennel Club). I've spent the better part of the weekend researching Hinks and his contribution to what laid the foundation for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and I am convinced AKC has the history correct. It is easily verifiable in historic

paintings of the Hicks' dogs, which are far more representative of the modern Staffie than the modern Bull Terrier, which explains what the KC meant when they said "When the founder of the Bull Terrier James Hinks added other breeds like the Collie to change the head shape of that breed, devotees of the original type of bull terrier cross remained loyal to their preferred type." The latter is what led to the egg shaped head of the modern Bull Terrier. Hinks' bloodline is what perfected the very foundation of the breed that was named the Staffordshire Bull Terrier after the KC rejected "Original Bull Terrier".

There is also the book The Bull Terrier - A Compete Anthology of the Dog - 1850-1940, Vintage Dog Books 2010 - ISBN 978-14455-2700-0 and 978-14455-2809-0 wherein it states: The Pure White Bull Terrier was standardized many years ago by the late Mr. James Hinks, of Birmingham, and has now been bred to a high state of perfection. It was the blending of these two, the Pure White and the Staffordshire, that produced the modern Coloured Bull Terrier.
The breeder’s ideal is a good dog as good in type and quality as the best Pure White, but with the Coloured coat of the Staffordshire. To do this, the best Staffordshire available were mated to the finest Pure Whites. The results were an immediate improvement in type. Again, the most typical specimen was selected, and again mated to a quality dog, and so on. But it was not a fast improvement, as breeders had continually to return to the Staffordshire for the desired colour, so losing a little of the type already gained.

Hinks Bull Terriers - in this book, it clearly states that Hicks wanted a "gentleman's companion, not a pit fighter"; therefore, he infused the bloodlines of dogs with the temperament and genetic qualities he sought - that's what successful breeders do. ...mid 19th century Hinks started crossing existing bull and terriers with his white bulldog…mixed in other dog breeds. Result - white dog with better legs and a nicer head. They were called Hinks breed and the White Cavalier but no egg-shaped head. Hinks wanted a gentleman’s companion, not a pit fighter. It is believed Dalmation blood was added for elegance, and then borzoi and collie blood added to elongate the head and reduce the stop.

The information presented by the AKC is corroborated in various books and online breed organizations that are preserving the history of the bull terrier lineage: The Bull Terrier was introduced by James Hinks of Birmingham, who had been experimenting for several years with the old bull-and-terrier dog, now known as Staffordshire. It is generally conceded that he used the Staffordshire, crossed with the white English Terrier, and some writers contend that a dash of Pointer and Dalmatian blood was also used to help perfect the all-white Bull Terrier.

Dogs in Canada April 2008 - pg 54 - By the 1860s, dog fanciers and writers were noticing that Hinks was breeding a new type of Bull Terrier, eliminating many of the Bulldog’s undesirable physical characteristics while preserving its courage. He added ‘nobility’ – a longer neck, head and legs. It’s said that he used the Dalmatian to strengthen general appearance and the Greyhound for longer legs. To this day there are four types in Bull Terriers: a terrier type, Dalmatian type and Bulldog type, and a middle-of-the-road type that’s considered the ideal type by experts, having just enough of the three other types to be a good Bull Terrier.

pg 55 - Hinks disappeared from the dog scene around 1870, but the mark he left on the breed is huge. His creation is familiar all over the world and his first dogs – Old Madman, Madman and Puss – are regarded as the start of the Bull Terrier. As for all the breeds Hinks used for his creation, the mystery is only partly resolved. And it goes on to read, In the 1930s, when he was over 80 years old, James Hinks II wrote an article for the American magazine Dogdom. In it he stated that his father had used a Dalmatian, a Bulldog and White English Terriers to create the breed. How he created a breed, can be read in Kevin Kane’s book: “... in the fact that he created, what was basically a mongrel and presented it to an unsuspecting world as The Bull Terrier. The judges of the day showed a preference for his strain of Bull Terrier.”

Staffords online The Staffordshire Bull Terrier was originally known as the Bull  and Terrier and was later (incorrectly) changed to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier to distinguish between more readily available and not necessarily as pure breeds of the Bull Terrier. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is an English breed of dog.

FunkMonk, are you monitoring this TP? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'll let this discussion settle, and then figure out what to do about this and the earlier discussion above (which the other editors seem to have left). FunkMonk (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, thank you for your very detailed response. Everything you have quoted above is the history of the Bull Terrier (the modern breed), not the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and all supports what I am saying. The Bull Terrier was created by Hinks by breeding Bull and Terriers (what later became Staffies) with English White Terriers (and later Collies / Dalmations etc). From memory the all white Bull Terriers always suffered from health problems so later breeders reintroduced Staffie blood to reinvigorate the breed and add some colour.

The Bull Terrier was officially recognised by the KC well before the Staffie, so in the 1930s when KC recognition was sought by the breeders of the Staffie, the name Bull Terrier was unavailable and they applied for Original Bull Terrier, when that was rejected they settled on Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC).

Bull Terrier#History actually says what have just said above. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, CM - allow me a bit more time to modify that section with a slightly different approach because I believe what we're dealing with is breed branding, and 4 different types of Bull Terriers that have evolved from the Hinks line. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, I’m happy for you to take as much time as you need, but my point is (and remains) Hinks had no role in the development of the Staffie, only one source you have pointed to (the AKC) makes that claim and I (along with apparently every other KC, breed club and author on the subject) believe it to be incorrect.

On a separate note, I believe the below sentence to be a misinterpretation of the source:

In mid-19th century Victorian England, the dogs were used for fox hunting and vermin control, above and below ground, as well as for dog fighting.

This statement is about of the terrier family as a whole, but not the Staffie or Bull and Terrier, the KC includes that paragraph on every terrier page (Airedale, Australian Terrier and Bedlington Terrier to list the first three). I have never read or heard of Staffie’s (or any other bull terrier) being used for fox hunting or below ground work and believe it to be highly misleading. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC).

Improved history section

Recognising our current discussion about the involvement of Hinks in the development of the Stafford, below is what I believe to be an improved history section:

The Staffie was developed in the Black Country area of the West Midlands, England, west of Birmingham.

Theories of origin

There are two theories about the development of the Staffie.

The first and more widely held theory is that the Staffie is the direct descendent of the long extinct Bull and Terrier, a type of dog developed in early 19th century England for the then popular blood sports of dog fighting and rat baiting. The Bull and Terrier originated as a cross between the ferocious, thickly muscled Old English Bulldog and the agile, lithe and feisty Black and Tan Terrier. The aggressive Old English Bulldog, bred for bear and bull baiting, was often pitted against its own kind in organised dog fights, but it was determined that lighter, faster dogs were better suited for dog fighting than the heavier Bulldog. In an effort to produce a lighter, faster, more agile dog with the courage and tenacity of the Bulldog, breeders outcrossed with local terriers and ultimately achieved success.

The second less widely held theory maintains that the Staffie is the direct descendant of Old English Bulldogs that were selectively bred over successive generations to produced a smaller dog with a more athletic build that was more suited to dog fighting, but with no terrier crosses ever used in their breeding. Proponents of this theory cite as evidence the distinct similarity in appearance of the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier with Old English Bulldogs in paintings from the period.

Parliamentary intervention

The passage of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835 through the British Parliament rendered blood sports illegal in the UK. This bill effectively eliminated bull and bear baiting in the United Kingdom, bull and bear baiting required large arenas which made it easier for authorities to police, dog fighting however was much harder for law enforcement to detect because fight sponsors kept their venues hidden and closely guarded in private basements and similar locations. As a result, dog fighting continued long after bull and bear baiting had ceased and it was not until the Protection of Animals Act 1911 was passed that organised dog fighting was effectively eliminated in Britain.

Divergence of the Bull Terrier

In the mid–19th century, dog dealer James Hinks started crossing Bull and Terriers with English White Terriers to give a cleaner appearance with better legs and nicer head, later Dalmation and Collie blood was added, these dogs became the modern Bull Terrier. London dog shows started including classes for Hinks' type Bull Terriers in 1862, Birmingham shows followed in 1864 and a number of these dogs were included in The Kennel Club's first Stud Book in 1874 as Bull Terriers.

Recognition for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Devotees of the original Bull and Terrier type, predominantly located in the Black Country, maintained the original Bull and Terrier's bloodlines and appearance. The name "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" did not appear until 1930 when it began to appear in advertisements for dogs of the type. Throughout 1932 and 1933 attempts were made to gain Kennel Club recognition by pioneering breeder Joseph Dunn, in early 1935 the very first show was held on the blowing green of the Conservative Club at Cradley Heath, in May the Kennel Club approved the name "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" (the first name requested, "Original Bull Terrier", was rejected by the Kennel Club). In June 1935 the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club was formed in a meeting at the Old Cross Guns pub in Cradley Heath, that same day the breed standards were approved, further shows were held that year. Other pivotal pioneering breeders involved in the breed’s recognition were Joe Mallen and actor Tom Walls.

Divergence of the American Staffordshire Terrier

In the 19th century Bull and Terriers were taken to the US by English and Irish immigrants. In 1936 descendants of these dogs achieved recognition by the American Kennel Club as the "Staffordshire Terrier", in recognition of the similarities with the recently recognised English breed. In the early 1970s the name was changed to "American Staffordshire Terrier" when the American Kennel Club recognised the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a breed.

References

I believe this to be improved for a number of reasons:

• it covers the history chronologically from Old English Bulldog to recognition
• it adequately covers the divergence of the Bull Terrier and the Am Staff
• it reintegrates the formation of the first breed club, the selection of the name and KC recognition into the history section, these are critical parts of the modern breed’s history than cannot be relegated to a separate recognition section

I am very open to discussion and suggestions for improvements. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC).

Website bulldoginformation.com probably not RS

@Atsme: I noticed you added today two citations using the website bulldoginformation.com. Please note that this is a self published monetized website by a single person who states no expertise in the area beyond (a) being a webmaster and (b) having "a passion for bulldogs". [25] It is probably not a reliable source per Wikipedia Verifiability and RS guidelines. Nomopbs (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I actually used Bull and Terrier sources. I will find a better source, but it would prove helpful if you would make note of the source issue at that article as well - there may be other related articles with that same issue. I made the mistake of presuming it was already pre-checked by the editors at Bull and Terrier, and won't make that mistake again. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I put a note on Bull and Terrier Talk page. I don't have time today to address the rest. I see it's also used in the following articles: Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull and Terrier, Catch dog, List of dog fighting breeds, Catahoula bulldog, Molossus of Epirus, Old English Bulldog, Chinese Crested Dog, Bulldog breeds, Kunming wolfdog, Bay dog, Inbreeding, Greater Swiss Mountain Dog, and Bill George (dog dealer). — Nomopbs (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You can strike this article in your list. I'm pretty sure I've removed all citations to that page, so if you see one I've missed, just remove it and add a tag. Oh, just an FYI - monetization is not a reason to consider a source unreliable. Many, if not most, online RS use monetization or may be behind a paywall. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I know full well that monetization is not the main reason it's not an RS, but I assert it is THE reason why the website was created. I have never seen a more advertise-y website in my life. — Nomopbs (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Pit bull again

Atsme, I was of the understanding that consensus has determined the classification of the Stafford as a pit bull did not worthy of the lead, is this a mistake? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC).

My sincere apologises, I was looking at the wrong revision. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC).

It was my mistake - I fixed it when I got your first notice. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Why complete revert

Atsme, why did you revert all of the revisions I made yesterday? All were cited, all included edit summaries, they fixed a number of factual errors you have introduced into the article and you even thanked me for one of them. I have been trying to just discuss amendments with you on the talk page but seem to have been ignored.

Why do we have a section named after someone who HAD ZERO INFLUENCE OVER THIS BREED? It is lunacy. Why is he mentioned in the lead? Why is the modern Bulldog listed as a foundation breed in the lead (something that is incorrect) but then the body and infobox correct that obvious error that YOU HAVE INTRODUCED? Why does the first use of the name Staffordshire Bull Terrier ever appear in the history? Is that not pertinent to the history of a dog called the Staffordshire Bull Terrier?

Why do you claim this breed of dog was introduced to US a half century before they even existed? Because a source says so? Even though that same source has obvious errors that have been discussed above at length.

I await your response. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC).

Calvaryman, you began as a helpful collaborator during this GA review but your recent edits were disruptive. You removed large blocks of text, added and renamed subsections, and created cite errors. As the GA nom, I have been working with the GA reviewer FunkMonk for at least a week now, satisfactorily addressing the clarification/context issues he raised and approved on July 14th after the changes were made. You undid all of that and basically forced us to start over from square one. The reviewer's stated intent was to look into the various suggestions made on this TP before finalizing his review. A short day or so later, you took it upon yourself to remove large chunks of text, and performed a remake of the entire article to suit your liking, which disrupted the GA review. Worse yet, you did so without any discussion on the TP. In your wake of reversions/changes, you left citation errors and removed material that I added for clarification. For example, you removed the section James Hinks and added a section about the modern Bull Terrier along with other subsections as follows: Baiting and the Bulldog, Dog fighting and the Bull and Terrier, The modern Bull Terrier, The Staffordshire Bull Terrier If you want to expand the article after it achieves GA status, have at it - get it promoted to FA, but while this GA review is in process, please do not disrupt the flow and create extra work for us.

In light of the cite errors you introduced and the material you omitted, the best approach for me was to restore the version previously accepted by the GA reviewer, and work from there. Quite frankly, while your collaboration is certainly welcome, I am still the nom who agreed to work with the reviewer. There is an accepted protocol to follow regarding GA reviews, and it does not include tendentious editing. Perhaps Cullen328 can do a much better job of explaining the review process, and hopefully prevent further disruption and inevitably, a complete fail of this GAC. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cavalryman V31: Atsme did the same thing to me a week ago. It's clear to me that this article wasn't anywhere near ready for a GAR review and Atsme has been using this week long process to do major edits on an article without posting a Template:Under construction. The article has been edited beyond all recognition during a process intended to check and tweak a few things. See Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. This article should have been removed from the GAR process days ago once it was noticed that (a) major changes were being done, and (b) there were at least two editors who disagreed strongly about the content (who were being blocked from making those edits). — Nomopbs (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#(5) Stable:

• Actual Criteria: Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Good article reviews are not supposed to interfere with normal editing.
• An article is unstable if ... editors are directly telling you that you shouldn't review the article because they're in the middle of major changes, or if the article is changing so dramatically and so rapidly that you can't figure out what you're supposed to be reviewing.
• Mistakes to avoid: Discouraging normal editing activity for the convenience of the review.

— Nomopbs (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, my additions yesterday were far from tendentious editing, they were attempts at rectifying several major issues that have crept into this article during the GA process. Several of my attempts to disuss a number of major issues that you have introduced have been met with denial followed by lengthy unnecessary debate, or have simply been ignored. I am happy to resume talk page discussion but would appreciate responses and reasoned explanations as to why you disagree.

To get the ball rolling:

• The lead is now an abomination:

• in places it contradicts the rest of the article
• it makes repetitive but contradictory statements in successive paragraphs
• it introduces statements that are both not consistent with the article and are not supported by the sources (please show me the source that states “The Staffie's association in early 19th century as a fighting dog made it difficult to gain recognition in the purebred registry of the Kennel Club (KC) in the UK, as well as the American Kennel Club (AKC) in the US”.
• it does not mention and has no link to the Black Country despite the majority of sources specifically referring to it as opposed to the county of Staffordshire
• it misinterprets and so misconstrues what the article and the sources have to say, the sentence “After the banning of blood sports and pit fighting in 1835, attitudes changed which, over the course of a few centuries, resulted in generations of responsible breeding and further breed refinement of the Staffie as a popular family pet and companion dog” is misleading, after 1835 dog fighting increased

• The history section, where to start:

• it does not flow, it jumps from unconnected statement to unconnected statement
• it no longer covers the history of the breed (one would assume the first appearance of the breed’s name might be pertinent to the breed’s history), instead it just talks about blood sports legislation, James Hinks and Bull and Terriers with no connecting narrative.
• it devotes an entire sub-section to and named after someone who had no influence over the development of the breed which is the subject of this page. Hinks’ relevance is:

• the name Bull Terrier was taken before Staffordshire recognition was sought
• the Staffordshire was the base breed used when developing the Bull Terrier

• You continually claim the “Staffie” and more recently the “Staffordshire” was introduced into the US a half century before the breed existed. Your more recent wording grossly misinterprets the new source I can assume has been introduced to justify the maintenance of this obvious nonsense. Yes Bull and Terriers were introduced to the States in 19th century, let’s just say that.
• You are placing undue weight on the AKC recognition process as opposed to othe KCs
• Thankfully you have removed (hopefully with fire) the diatribe about the UKC which has no relevance to this page.

I keenly await your responses. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC).

Hold on just a minute, and let's recap exactly what has taken place since May 24th:

• The article sat here with little to no activity after I announced #Potential GA here on May 24, 2019.
• On June 13, I nominated the article for GA.
• On June 25th, one comment by William Harris followed by a short back & forth about the term pit bull.
• On June 29th Cavalryman, Gareth Griffith-Jones and I commented.
• July 8 the review was accepted.
• July 9th Nomopbs and Calvaryman decide there are issues with the article, and haven't let up since.

Now what exactly are you are gaslighting me over or are you projecting? I simply made the changes suggested by the reviewer and all of a sudden, Nomopbs attempts to displace the reviewer, and Cavalryman attempts to displace the nom. It's pretty obvious that I'm not the one causing the instability. Calvaryman, my suggestion to you now that this GA review is stalled as a result of the instability you and Nomopbs have caused, is to call an RfC for whatever you want to include or remove. I will not be drawn into edit warring or bickering back and forth over the same things I've said repeatedly but all I'm getting is either WP:DONTLIKEIT or WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. I have better things to do with my time, and I'm sure FunkMonk does, too. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree this is getting sidetracked, and for me as GAN reviewer, these parallel discussions are getting hard to follow. If editors have reservations to specific points I have proposed at the GAN talk page, please bring them up there, as stated by the GAN template above: "Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer." Maintenance tags are not needed, as GAs are expected to undergo major changes by default. Also, bringing up the instability GA criterion while being the source of the instability (after the GA review has begun, no less) is disingenuous; bring up issues here instead of edit warring if you are honestly concerned about stability. As for whether this article was ready for a good article nomination or not, that would be better appreciated if suggested by someone with experience in actually reviewing or nominating GAs. FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I take exception to the accusations of being disruptive and of tendentious editing for making well sourced amendments with full explanation, but I agree this is not construtive for the review, so in the review‘s interest I will withdraw somewhat from this article until after it is completed. For now I simply ask (without condition) that:

• thorough consideration be make of the relevance of James Hinks to this breed, I believe currently undue attention is given to someone who had no impact on this breed
• the lead be carefully looked at to ensure it does not misinterpret the rest of the article
• the source cited for the sentence The Staffie's early origins as a fighting dog made it difficult to gain recognition as a breed for entry in the KC's breed registry be reviewed, and if found not to make this claim and no other source is found, the sentence be removed both from the paragraph and the lead
• common sense be applied to the notion that Staffies first arrived in North America in the mid to late 1880s, that is clearly not the case.

I look forward to seeing the results of the review. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC).

Thanks for the overview, will make it much easier than reading through the entire discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I am concerned whenever I see editors previously uninvolved (or minimally involved) with an article suddenly appear at a GAN or other review, deliberately creating disruption and instability, particularly when the lead editor on the project is someone they have previously tangled with. Where they had a chance to comment during the pre-GA process and failed to do so, This smacks of hounding. I think that the status quo ante of a GAN needs to be preserved until or unless there is consensus between the reviewer and lead editors that changes are needed. To the extent that “drive-by” editors certainly can put in their two bits, it needs to be done on the talkpage and not with dramatic edits that change the entire nature of the article. Montanabw^(talk) 03:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Atsme and FunkMonk, there are two other concerns I have with the current version:

• the omission of most of the information in the KC subsection from the history. The events of 1930–1935 are key elements in this breed’s history, the first use of it’s current name, the formation of the first breed club and the publication of the breed standard mark the point this breed transitioned from a dog type to a dog breed, given this is an article about the breed that is possibly the most pertinent point in the breed’s history.
• the misconstruing of rat-baiting as vermin control, one is a blood sport and the other is not, all of the sources refer to organised rat baiting.

Montanabw, if you are suggesting I am previously uninvolved with this article I suggest you check the page history, in March I completely rewrote this article, most of the paragraphs currently in this article were introduced by me, I know what the sources say because I introduced most of the major ones and to stand back and allow inaccurate information to be introduced in the name of a review is poor form. As for my previous “previous tangles” with Atsme, as far as I am aware every previous interaction I have ever had with her is on this page. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC).

@Atsme, FunkMonk, and Montanabw: The wikibullying needs to stop; especially the name calling and actions caused by failure to assume good faith. Please review Wikipedia:Expert retention and Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. — Nomopbs (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomopbs, I am extremely uncomfortable labeling anything that has occurred here as bullying, this is standard (admittedly quite robust) content discussion. The timing of these discussions is unfortunate but I fear inaccuracies and inconsistencies have crept into the article during the process and the process is being used as a reason to avoid debate. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC).

Not sure how it is "bullying" to suggest that common editing conventions be followed. Nomopbs needs to quit the hyperbole and stick to the issues, here on the talk page. The best way to proceed is to make a list of perceived issues with the article, and then let the GA nominator respond to the list, which is how GA reviews are conducted. Anything else (including edit-warring and accusations) is just disruption for no good reason at this point. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Y The two points mentioned by Cavalryman V31:

• the omission of most of the information in the KC subsection from the history.... -- ?? There is no omission of anything relevant to SBT. You mentioned events of 1930–1935, first use of current name, formation of first breed club and breed standard - that information is summarized in the section Kennel Club and was restored when I restored the version initially approved by the reviewer. What I did not restore were the off-topic sections Baiting and the Bulldog, which belongs in the Bulldog article, Dog fighting and the Bull and Terrier, which belongs in the Bull and Terrier article, The modern Bull Terrier which belongs in the Bull Terrier article. What readers need to know about Hinks & his "white cavalier" is simply a basic understanding that what he did caused a split into 2 different breed types, one of which led to the creation of the modern Staffie.

• the misconstruing of rat-baiting as vermin control, one is a blood sport and the other is not, all of the sources refer to organised rat baiting - Y SBT is categorized in the Terrier group (vermin chasers, ratters, etc.); however, published material about that activity is too sparce to worry about including it at this point. There are some books/articles that mention badger, hog & fox hunting but they are too few and far between. It was mostly a rural farm activity but, again, sparsely covered. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

With respect this is unsatisfactory:

• to exclude information about the breed’s history from the history section makes no sense
• when the majority of sources say these dogs were used for organised rat baiting, that should be included. That a KC makes a generalised three word statement about a very broad grouping of dogs does not give merit the exclusion of reliability sourced content.

Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC).

What 2 secondary RS do you have that we can cite for inclusion regarding Staffordshire Bull Terriers were used for rat-baiting, and we'll add it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧

Of existing sources in the article Fogle, Hancock and Zarley (the last an excellent source you have introduced that compliments Beaufoy in stating the 1835 Act resulted in an increase in dog fighting in Britain and will be used by me following the review to expand that section). Further sources are included in the rat baiting and Westminster Pit articles of Bull and Terriers used in the pits, as well as Phil Drabble in his Of Pedigree Unknown: Sporting and Working Dogs, as well as David Plummer in Tales of a Rat-Hunting Man.

Despite your contention that this is the last unresolved issue I do not consider it so, I have listed several above (in particular omissions from the history section and the naming a section after Hinks and the preposterous assertion that “Staffies” arrived in the New World 50 years before the name was coined) but am very happy to leave them until after review. I am very appreciative of those concerns of mine you have addressed and feel the article is better for it. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC).

Well, thank you for your consideration in allowing the GA review to continue without further interruption. What I would appreciate equally as much is your recognition of our WP:PAGs which are meant to guide us when including content, particularly NOR, V, NPOV, DUE, and RS. If it is determined that a cited source does not support the material you include, it will be removed, not unlike what I have done when you challenged material that was not supported by RS. The sources you referenced above do not name Staffordshire Bull Terriers as pit bulls that were used for rat-baiting simply because the breed did not exist at that time; therefore, it is your opinion based on your interpretation of the sources, and what is believed to be their ancestry. See WP:RS and WP:V as it directly relates to this issue.

A Jan 2019 article in the NYTimes explains it well: Pit bull is actually an umbrella term rather than a specific breed, said Dr. Pamela Reid, the vice president of the ASPCA anti-cruelty behavior team. “With the pit bull we have this pervasive label that encompasses a variety of purebred dogs as well as mixes that share characteristics but not DNA, like American pit bull terriers, Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American bulldogs. ‘Pit bull’ is now a label for any medium to large, muscular, short-coated dog with a blocky, disproportionately large head.” That article specifically mentions that Staffordshire Bull Terriers were used for fighting and bull-baiting, which I included and cited in the lede and body text. It meets the requirements of both V & RS. The article also states: “The result is a population of dogs with a wide range of behavioral predispositions,” Dr. Reid said. “We know that there’s so much individual variability within a breed it makes sense scientifically to treat them as individuals.” I reiterate, "individuals" not the entire breed, whatever that breed may be. A Bull and Terrier of the past is not a modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Do not conflate the two, or juxtapose material to imply same. Use inline text attribution or a quote by a credible author but it must unequivocally state that Staffordshire Bull Terriers were used for rat-baiting, and if it doesn't, then it does not belong in this article - see WP:SYNTH. Also keep in mind that we already have Rat-baiting, Blood sports, Bull and Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Pit Bull etc. in addition to articles about the legislation that banned blood sports, and relate to animal cruelty. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Well said, Atsme! Good work and ready for GA. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Atsme and others, I wish to apologise for my behaviour over the period 17-19 July, I will not attempt to make excuses for my actions with off-Wiki sob stories, my behaviour was inappropriate, it most likely derailed the GAN process and cost friendships. Forgiveness is a big ask so instead I ask that you accept my apology which is made in all sincerity. Cavalryman (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC).

Response to FunkMonk's request for a list

I've been dying to say something about "blowing green". Do you mean "bowling green"?

BSL section: I've expressed my opinion about this previously. The topic is covered at length elsewhere and the middle part of this section is not about the Staffie. What IS about the Staffie is where the breed IS and where it IS NOT restricted by BSL regulations. Maybe keep the PETA 2018 comments. But the part about other breeds... toss. The part about AKC's opinion about BSL... definitely toss. Add that to the BSL article if you think it's important, but it doesn't belong on the Staffie page.

The heading "early protection" doesn't make any sense. You read the Table of Contents and wonder why a breed needs early protection in the history of the breed. You read the section and it doesn't have anything to do with what you THOUGHT it meant. Perhaps name it "Early Animal Welfare Actions" or "Prevention of Cruelty to Animals" or just something which actually categorizes it. Or don't name it at all but just put it under history. Same with Hinks heading. You could omit the heading.

Having said that, it doesn't segue into the article. It jumps from animal welfare actions to James Hinks, and you're left wondering why the section about welfare was even put in there.

I agree with another editor that the heading "James Hinks" and much of the paragraph doesn't really fit with the subject matter. It's far in the past, how does it mate with the welfare section previously, and how does it mate with the later "origins" (Black Country era)? Could there be that the jump in topic is because you've omitted something?

Perhaps you need to swallow hard and actually say what is on everyone's mind, which is that the breed was originally created FOR the blood sports and was heavily used in dog fighting and was the preferred breed for dog fighting in England (frankly, until the American Pit Bull Terrier was imported and supplanted the Staffies as the preferred dog fighting breed; underground, illegal, but still going on in present time). You don't actually mention that aspect of the Staffie history. You hint at it by saying blood sports were banned. You dance around it. But the result is a not-so-honest history with a lot of holes in it. If you really like the breed, you have to "own" its history and origins. Hiding it behind some carefully worded nuances leaves the reader scratching their head and wondering about it all. "Why do they keep mentioning blood sports?" Well, you don't say why. These omissions are why the welfare section and the Hinks section are so disjointed. The article doesn't "flow" because you're leaving out some of the glue to the story.

On the page Fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom, there are 11 fatalities by Staffies or Staffie crosses. Out of a total of 42 on the page, that's 25%, which is a high percentage. Perhaps make mention of that at the tail end of the Popularity section, right after the Chav culture comment. It IS one of the major reasons that there has been pushes to add Staffies to Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act. You well cover why it hasn't been added.

There's just too much non sequitur in the article.

Here is just one example of what I mean about the Staffie history and your article's dance around the topic of fighting dogs as part of the breed's history. This shows that the dogs Mallen et al tried so hard to gain recognition from the Kennel Club were also fighting dogs at the same time. "Joe took Gentleman Jim to Crufts in 1938 and got two “seconds” in the puppy class. Despite his obvious potential in the show ring, Gentleman Jim was no pampered show dog. He had to earn his keep and reputation in the time-honoured manner, fighting and defeating any challenger who turned up at The Cross Guns. Joe recalls that he fought and defeated three game dogs in one afternoon and lost a fang in the process. All this went on in the months leading up to the 1939 Crufts show. In that period, Gentleman Jim proved he was not only cast in the mould of physical perfection, but possessed the tremendous courage and gameness which was a famous attribute in the Mallen strain." [26] That's just one tip of the dog fighting history iceberg I've read.

How you want to handle this information?... meh... I'm just pointing out what I see as errors and omissions.

— Nomopbs (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The main issue here seems to be that the article is not clear on whether the breed was specifically bred for fighting or not. But do we have reliable sources that state this specifically? I don't see any suggested above, which is required for inclusion. The "Theories of origin" section indicates the breed was bred to refine older fighting breeds, which already hints at its purpose, but we can't be more explicit than the available sources are. We need a source that states "the breed was bred for fighting", deducing this from the lives of individual dogs is potential WP:original synthesis. Based on the sources, I do think we could state more explicitly whether the breed was itself used for fighting, not only that it descended from fighting breeds. FunkMonk (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I don't feel too inclined to do research for the article, but here are some links I'd saved at one point. Maybe they will be useful or give you some ideas of things to google: Interview with Mallen and dark dog [27], Mallen histories [28] [29] [30] [31], 1:53 shows Joe Mallen and an indoor "class" of Staffords [32] — Nomopbs (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe User:Cavalryman V31 has some links/citations. He seemed knowledgeable about that period of the Staffie's history. — Nomopbs (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, see MOS:US re US versus United States in the article. — Nomopbs (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I corrected the misspelling, and changed the Hinks subsection title. FunkMonk, the cited sources verify what is written in the article. I stayed true to the official breed club and breed registry descriptions in the UK and US. Mention of Hinks is DUE because he is credited by the breed registries for perfecting the foundation breeding of the bull terrier type which led to the modern Bull Terrier and Staffie. Hinks continued outcrossing but a group of breeders didn't like the changes being made to the shape of the head, and stayed with the foundation breeding - the article covers it well. As for the fighting history - the article covers it in compliance with NPOV. As you know, WP articles are summaries and should not be overly detailed. The breed registries and their recognized clubs are considered the primary authorities for purebred dogs; therefore, when citing sources, we need to exercise caution and verify the credibility of the respective authors and publishers lest we end-up including the perceptions of pet owners who simply love their dogs. Also, the purebred registries in the US condemn dog fighting which is a felony in the 50 US states, and will take action against any member found to be involved with it in any way. I am of the mind that including any further detail about the centuries-old fighting ancestry of bully types is UNDUE, none of which represents the modern Staffie. We also must not conflate the illegal activity of dog fighting using aggressive crosses of pit bull types with the purebred Staffie and other bull terrier-types that are recognized by purebred registries for dog showing and family pets. I added AKC's position on dog fighting, and believe what is currently included in the article as it relates to the dog bans and advocacies is adequately mentioned, as is the relative legislation - all of which is properly sourced and in compliance with NPOV. I am pinging Gareth Griffith-Jones so he can weigh-in with his suggestions to the proposed changes by Nomopbs as well. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

(reping bad ping Gareth Griffith-Jones ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC))

@Atsme: The breed registries have nothing to gain and everything to lose by even mentioning the dog fighting past of any of their breeds. Their website is not an encyclopedia; it is a marketing tool. They make money from registrations of puppies born from breedings. Like much marketing, there isn't even a penalty if they lie about a dog breed's history. They are going to put their best foot forward. Wikipedia, on the other hand, does not need to put the best foot forward for topics in the encyclopedia. For you to think that the breed registries' version of a dog breed's history is "the authority" is rather short sighted and not NPOV. Per WP:NPOV: "NPOV, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." — Nomopbs (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources

WP is not a SOAPBOX for ban the bully or fighting dog advocacy positions. We go by WEIGHT and expert opinion from mainstream RS; we depend on the authorities of purebred animals, which happen to be the breed registries and breed clubs - nonprofit entities dedicated to the breed and breed improvement with their goal being to create quality show dogs that meet breed standards for conformation and temperament. We have articles about pit bull types, dog fighting and baiting, which is where such information belongs, not here, not on an article about a purebred family pet that is a show dog. WP:DROPTHESTICK. It is not up to the GA reviewer to decide whether or not such detail belongs in this article. That is up to consensus because it is challenged material that has consistently been removed. A GA review is not a place to gain consensus. The reviewer simply reviews the article as presented, and makes suggestion. They either pass or fail the review based on GA criteria. FunkMonk, please make a determination based on article content as presented, and close this review. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 09:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: You're the one on the soapbox with your insistence in a sanitized version of history in pursuit of promoting a dog breed in present time. I was asked for input, so I gave it. What is neither needed nor wanted is you attacking me personally over and over when I present my opinions about the CONTENT of an article. It still reads disjointed. I offered my opinion of why... because it's missing information. Just because I don't pursue my viewpoint any more vehemently than I do, and let you have your way, doesn't mean you have consensus with your viewpoint. After all, I'm not the only editor you've run off these last few weeks. Why can't you just take an opinion and use it or don't use it. Instead I feel like I'm in a badminton game with an opponent swapping out the shuttlecocks with darts! — Nomopbs (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I never mentioned your name - I do not appreciate being drawn into a WP:BATTLEGROUND or your refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Please do not cause further disruption, and do not address me further. I am done here. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I announced I'd had enough on 11 July and went away, but y'all keep coaxing me back. — Nomopbs (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Not so, Nomopbs, you have long-outplayed your prescence on this article and this Talk. Please, just stay away! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gareth Griffith-Jones and Atsme: You two need to review Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Tag team. — Nomopbs (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

This GA review has nothing to do with OWN and your accusation of TAG just took your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior over the top in disruption. I have asked Cullen328 to keep an eye on this TP since you are a new editor, but you refuse to DROPTHESTICK, and have resorted to casting aspersions against those with whom you disagree. We have done our best to collaborate collegially with you, but you have made the editing environment toxic. Call an RfC if you believe your POV will be accepted over WP:NPOV. I'm done here. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Ok, since the fighting issue seems to be the last one left, yet the most contentious one, I'll request a second opinion. Since it seems to attract recurring edit wars, it's best to not rush to a conclusion yet, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I found a comment in an essay called Wikipedia:Writing about breeds where it says "We cover all this stuff by neutrally observing what is written in the breed standards and related documentation; and in less primary sources like breed encyclopedias (tertiary sources); and especially in any secondary sources like books, academic journals, mainstream newspapers, and other materials not published by any of the kennel clubs or breed associations themselves." I find it interesting that I'm not the only one who has the idea that the material published by a kennel club is not necessarily the senior source for information. I mention this in support of inclusion of the 1930's fighting history of the Staffie even though it is omitted by the AKC and KC in their breed histories. (Note: I'm not referring to the breed standard.) — Nomopbs (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)