Revision as of 04:01, 15 May 2019 editCavalryman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,613 edits →Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier: re← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:38, 12 October 2024 edit undoExplodingCabbage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users672 edits →Popularity and Registrations.: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
(705 intermediate revisions by 54 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{British English}} | {{British English}} | ||
{{Article history | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
|topic = Biology and medicine | |||
{{WikiProject Dogs|class=start|importance=mid|breeds=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|class=start|importance=low}} | |||
|action1 = GAN | |||
|action1date = 14:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
|action1link = Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/GA1 | |||
|action1result = listed | |||
|action1oldid = 917592488 | |||
|action2 = GAR | |||
|action2date = 07:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
|action2link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Staffordshire Bull Terrier/1 | |||
|action2result = kept | |||
|currentstatus = GA | |||
}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Dogs|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=low}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Copied|from=Irish bull terrier|from_oldid=869289886|to=Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Breed-Specific Legislation|to_oldid=|to_diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Staffordshire_Bull_Terrier&diff=870107743&oldid=870105615&diffmode=source|date=22 November 2018}} | {{Copied|from=Irish bull terrier|from_oldid=869289886|to=Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Breed-Specific Legislation|to_oldid=|to_diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Staffordshire_Bull_Terrier&diff=870107743&oldid=870105615&diffmode=source|date=22 November 2018}} | ||
{{ |
{{Archive box|auto=yes}} | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|maxarchivesize = 150K | |maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 5 | ||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
|algo = old(180d) | |algo = old(180d) | ||
|archive = Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
==Hazards of ownership== | |||
== External links modified == | |||
I would also like to draw attention to this paper , which says, {{tq|Breeds such as Pit Bull terrier and Staffordshire Bull terrier are described in Breed Standards as “excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children” or “Highly intelligent and affectionate especially with children” despite their history as fighting dogs, their weight and strength. Their specific style of biting, “hold and tear”, can cause fatal injuries in minutes , and the biting combined with violent shaking exacerbates the injuries (Burns, Kusanale, & Brennan, 2011). Additionally, bull breeds are known to be aggressive to other dogs, which indirectly increases the risk of injuries to humans who may try to protect their own dogs from the attacking dog .}} ] (]) 20:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
:It's an anyalysis that dates back to fatal dog attacks in Europe 1995–2016. Staffords are mentioned once, not because they attacked, but because whoever wrote the paper happened to mention them and provided information that dates back to 2011, over a decade ago, that has long since been debunked. Who still believes chicken soup cures the common cold? | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
:{{talk quote|Breeds such as Pit Bull terrier and Staffordshire Bull terrier are described in Breed Standards as “excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children” or “Highly intelligent and affectionate especially with children” despite their history as fighting dogs, their weight and strength. Their specific style of biting, “hold and tear”, can cause fatal injuries in minutes , and the biting combined with violent shaking exacerbates the injuries (Burns, Kusanale, & Brennan, 2011). Additionally, bull breeds are known to be aggressive to other dogs, which indirectly increases the risk of injuries to humans who may try to protect their own dogs from the attacking dog .}} | |||
:That article provides -0- relevant information. It does state: {{xt|''This figure should be interpreted with caution, as FCI focuses on purebred dogs, '''which are a very small minority''', and only provide '''crude estimates of total dog numbers'''.''}} Hello? MINORITY. This article is about a purebred dog that is verifiable by two of the world's leading official dog registries; i.e., AKC and KC. All you are doing is further validating my position, which happens to be expert level in this topic area, not that it means anything to some WP editors - it's ok with me, I don't care - but it's funny that expert opinions only matter when one is seeking an expert opinion, but when those opinions do not agree with their POV, they don't count, do they? And your point for even mentioning this article? Seriously...cars are far more dangerous, and almost everyone of age has one. Better yet, let's go to the scary 18-wheelers - they are the "pit bulls" of the trucking industry. Compare the injury/death statistics and see how often those fatalities are mentioned in our articles about commercial trucking/trucks - you know, the deadly 18-wheelers. Let's create a list about 18-wheeler fatalities. You want to talk about dangerous to human life? There are about 471+/- million dogs in the world vs 278+/- commercial vehicles. Compare the death rates. In 2016, dogs killed 45 Europeans - and that is ALL OF EUROPE and ALL DOGS, not just Staffords - which translates to an incidence of 0.009 per 100,000 inhabitants. Dogs are animals, but trainable, considered domestic. So who is to blame for these fatalities with 18-wheelers? Is it the truck driver, the truck, the vehicle they hit? In the case of dogs, is it the dog, the dog owner, the person who was bitten? Let's look at the stats for 18-wheelers...in Texas alone in 2017 (which regularly has the highest number of fatal truck accidents) '''556 fatalities''' were reported - that's a single state, not all of the US. California was '''second with 320''', then '''Florida with 275'''. These stats are sourced to that appear to be the experts in this area. Corroborate the numbers - do the math. If you are truly concerned about human life to the point that you want to create fear in our readers who read this article thinking that these dogs are vicious, you are targeting the wrong topic area, and have totally missed the notability proportions for inclusion of such material. No pun intended, but you and the IP are barking up the wrong tree if you are looking for notable human deaths. At least with the vehicles, there are positive IDs as to the brand of vehicle/truck. With dogs, there is not. Think about it. ] ] ] 22:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
::We're not talking about 18 wheelers, we're talking about Staffordshire Bull Terriers. ] (]) 22:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
*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 | |||
:::I read the paper, and it's a reliable source, but it's largely about variables other than the breed of the dog. There is one section that addresses the breed, and both of you have quoted in full the paragraph that is relevant to this page, as opposed to dogs in general. And the quoted paragraph treats it as "on the one hand, on the other hand", rather than an all-out warning against certain breeds. We can probably put something on the page from this, but it should not go beyond what the source says. --] (]) 22:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fci.be/uploaded_files/076gb98_en.doc | |||
:::In fact, the paragraph just before the paragraph about the terriers says in part: {{tq|Important information includes who bred and raised the dog in question, if there were more litters from same parental material, the criteria the breeders used when selecting the breeding stock and to whom is the breeder sells the puppies.}} That's the authors making it clear that they regard such things as raising, training, and ownership, as distinguished from genetics, as being important in determining breed behavior. So they attribute some of it to the hold-and-tear genetics, but they also attribute some of it to human treatment. --] (]) 22:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031105035003/http://www.nzkc.org.nz/br280.html to http://www.nzkc.org.nz/br280.html | |||
::::It seems like the authors of that paper might have a problem with this article stating things like, {{tq|The Stafford is considered a family pet and companion dog, and is among the breeds recommended by the KC for families.}} ] (]) 23:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
*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 | |||
:::::As you quoted them, the authors quote the Breed Standards as saying favorable things about them as good companions for families and children. Where the sentence pivots via "despite their history as...", I'm trying to evaluate what the authors intend, without trying to read something into it that isn't there. Are they saying that they are refuting what the Breed Standards say, or are they presenting two sides of the issue? I'm honestly not sure. --] (]) 23:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::: It's marketing speech. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 23:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
:::::::I take your point about the potential for marketing speech in the Breed Standards, but I don't feel that this applies to the choice of scientists in a peer-reviewed scientific journal to quote it. | |||
:::::::I've been thinking about how to treat this source for this page. As I said earlier, I think it's a reliable source. I think it could be useful to summarize it on a page about dog ownership in general, as opposed to a page like this, about a single breed. The source includes a section about differences between breeds, much of which is about how people treat different breeds differently, with one paragraph that we have been discussing in detail here. The rest of the source is about things other than breed traits, focusing mostly on the demographics of people who are more or less at risk of harm from domestic dogs. The paper abstract includes nothing about breeds. So it's not a source primarily about Staffies. If we cite the source for that one paragraph, we have to put in an awful lot of context. Otherwise, we would be misrepresenting the source in a POV way. I think that would require a couple of sentences, at least, and not just one sentence. And I think that runs up against ]. --] (]) 17:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 12:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Merger discussion == | |||
] articles: ] into ]; dated: November 2018. Proposer's Rationale: ] aka Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier should be merged here (or possibly create a redirect and add a paragraph explaining the crux of 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 ]. <sup>]]]</sup> 19:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
{{cot|reason=Merge/redirects have been executed as consensus to merge is obvious. <sup>]]]</sup> 14:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)}} | |||
===Discussion=== | |||
*<small>NOTE: I've posted notice of this discussion on WikiProject Dogs. <sup>]]]</sup> 19:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)</small> | |||
*<small>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. <sup>]]]</sup> 22:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)</small> | |||
* '''No merger:''' The ] is a separate breed and deserves it's own article. The merger banner should be removed immediately. ] (]) 22:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
*:Well IQ125, this isn't an RfC that requires an iVote, it's a discussion. ]] 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. <sup>]]]</sup> 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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 14:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
{{collapse top|left=y|bg=LightGrey|width=95%|title=Off-topic digression ...}} | |||
*:: ] 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 Misplaced Pages! ] (]) 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 {{tlx|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 ], but only because they have an overwhelming amount of secondary-source material written about them. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 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. {{Justcurious}}{{u|IQ125}}, did you author that book or know the person who did? <sup>]]]</sup> 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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 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. . The edits & reverts became confusing. <sup>]]]</sup> 21:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
*:::::::Ah! Okay. Well, at some point, someone {{em|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. :-) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 16:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
{{collapse bottom}} | |||
* '''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. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
* '''Support merge''' The "Irish Bull Terrier" is not recognised by any kennel club organisation. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
*'''Merge''' per nom. Clearly imaginary. ]]] 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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 14:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
*'''Merge''' Seems to be a sub breed, not not nearly enough to warrant its own article.] (]) 18:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support merge''' not a stand alone breed but a line of the Staffie. ] (]) 21:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC). | |||
*'''Support merge''' Not a recognized breed and we should not support any dog breeder marketing promotionalism. ] ] 07:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support merge''' - formally as nom. <sup>]]]</sup> 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 ] (AST)) lineage as well. (I'm not going to get into the worthlessness and prejudicial nature of ], 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 ] 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 ] article on breed specific legislation. So that is where I would merge it, not the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article. ] (]) 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 ? ] (]) 11:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
::Dr Nobody - please post your question at ] 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. <sup>]]]</sup> 16:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
{{cob}} | |||
==="Irish" Staffordshire section=== | |||
{{Discussion top|result={{done}}. Many thanks, ] (]) 00:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC).}} | |||
{{u|Atsme}}, I would like to propose new wording for the above section: | |||
In the United Kingdom ]s are sometimes advertised as "Irish" Staffordshire Bull Terriers in an attempt to circumvent the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.<ref name=Foggo-Lusher>Daniel Foggo and Adam Lusher, , published 2 June 2002. ( 3 August 2018).</ref> The appearance of the Irish Staffordshire, which is not recognised by any ] or breed registry, is attributed by the RSPCA to be contributing "to a rise in incidents of dog fighting", the editor of '']'' magazine described the breed as "complete fiction".<ref name=Foggo-Lusher/> | |||
{{sources-talk}} | |||
Bearing in mind the breed-specific legislation section already includes the first sentence above and talks about the ], I feel this new wording deals with all of the information without placing too much weight on topic with a single source. Kind regards, ] (]) 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. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 22:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
{{Discussion bottom}} | |||
== March 2019: Staffie as a ] == | |||
Hello {{u|BlueMoonlet}}, do you not feel the breed specific legislation section places ] 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, reverted attempts to correct the spelling, the ] template has been on this article since 2013, wholly fair for a British subject. | |||
Further, can I suggest you read ], it advises against the "See also" section repeating links that appear in the article's navigation boxes. ] (]) 12:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC). | |||
: And further still, your contention that the Staffie can be considered a ] is clearly far from universal, 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. ] (]) 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 ]. 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. --] (]/]) 16:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
{{u|BlueMoonlet}}, the Staffie is only defined as a ] within some North American juristictions, nowhere else (the closest I can find in a non-North American publication is the "], sometimes referred to as the 'Pit Dog'."<ref>James Beaufoy, ''Staffordshire Bull Terriers: a practical guide for owners and breeders'', Ramsbury, Wiltshire: The Crowood Press Ltd., 2016, {{ISBN|9781785000973}}.</ref>). 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 , since then multiple editors have tried to remove it and it has only been you that has consistently replaced it (, , , , , , , , , , , , , , and again ). | |||
This does not belong in the article's lead (] states "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight"), to do so is ]. Instead it belongs in the article's body, and it is there. Regards, ] (]) 05:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC). | |||
{{sources-talk}} | |||
:Concur 100%. ] (]) (]) 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. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 13:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
{{u|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, {{u|Gareth Griffith-Jones}} and {{u|Atsme}} as well as yourself) will read the discussions at ] and ], 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. --] (]/]) 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 ]. | |||
--] (]/]) 18:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
:I think it raises justifiable concern when we are faced with relentless insistence to identify the ] ancestry of Staffordshire Bull Terriers with modern day pit bulls, especially in the lead, and that is venturing into ] 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 AKC article (my bold underline for emphasis): {{xt| "From his brawling past, the muscular but agile Staffordshire Bull Terrier <u>'''retains the traits of courage and tenacity.'''</u> Happily, good breeding <u>'''transformed'''</u> 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. states {{xt|"...but he is a breed unto himself with distinct physical characteristics that set him apart, including size and ear shape."}} Animal Planet states: {{xt|...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. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 19:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
:: {{u|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, <u>and it is included</u>, but it should not be included in the lead as does not "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight". ] (]) 21:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC). | |||
:::{{u|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 ]. Wow. | |||
:::{{u|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 ]. appears to be the culprit. | |||
:::Your argument that we should discount ] 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. --] (]/]) 01:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
::::{{u|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. ] (]) 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<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pit%20bull | title = Pit bull | last = Merriam-Webster | access-date = 22 March 2019 | quote = a dog... of any of several breeds... that was originally developed for fighting and is noted for strength, stamina, and tenacity }}</ref> 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<ref>{{cite web | url = http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/pit-bull/ | last = Dias v. City & County of Denver, 567 F.3d 1169, 1173 (10th Cir. Colo. 2009) | access-date = 22 March 2019 | quote = A "pit bull" is defined as any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds }}</ref> 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<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.aspca.org/adopt/truth-about-pit-bulls | title = The Truth About Pit Bulls | last = ] | access-date = 22 March 2019 | quote = 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. }}</ref> 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 ] criteria for published material, declares<ref>{{cite book | last = Foster | first = Ken | date = 2012 | title = I'm a Good Dog: Pit Bulls, America's Most Beautiful (and Misunderstood) Dog | location = New York |publisher = ] | 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. }}</ref> that pit bulls are generally considered to denote a group of breeds including SBTs. | |||
:::::Not until {{u|Atsme}} posted yesterday have any sources been offered to support the opposing viewpoint. All three of Atsme's sources () 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! | |||
:::::--] (]/]) 18:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
::::::{{u|BlueMoonlet}}, the opposing viewpoint is yours alone at this point. 3 editors have disagreed with your position. I stand by what I said . You still haven't ], so your 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. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 18:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
:::::::{{u|Atsme}}, ]. Three people who say ] 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 Misplaced Pages. --] (]/]) 23:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
{{u|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. ]. ] (]) 08:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC). | |||
{{sources-talk}} | |||
===British Commonwealth definitions=== | |||
{{u|BlueMoonlet}}, let’s go through this again: | |||
* Within Britain: | |||
** prohibits “any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier” | |||
** the 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 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 ] 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: | |||
** , , and all restrict ownership of the American Pit Bull Terrier (and '''all include the synonym of Pit Bull Terrier''') | |||
** the 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'''. ] (]) 22:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC). | |||
:{{u|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. --] (]/]) 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 ], 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. --] (]/]) 23:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
:: {{u|BlueMoonlet}}, you are the one who continues to use the Colorado legal definition as an example. Here’s another for you, the 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'''.” ] (]) 06:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC). | |||
:::And another from the , “pit bull terrier noun a large breed of bull terrier, originally developed for dogfighting. '''Often shortened to pit bull'''.” ] (]) 06:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC). | |||
== Main image == | |||
I think a more illustrative main image is needed. This current image () is not very illustrative, the dog has his back to the camera. I recommend this ones below (or similars). ] (]) 05:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
<gallery> | |||
File:Staffie.jpg | |||
File:Staffordshire Bull Terrier 2.JPG | |||
File:Staffordshire Bull Terrier 600.jpg | |||
File:Staf LM.jpg | |||
</gallery> | |||
:No, {{U|Adventurous36}}, you are wrong. The correct image in the info' box must be a four-legged sideways stance. Cheers! ] (]) (]) 09:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
::{{u|Adventurous36}}, I agree with {{u|Gareth Griffith-Jones}}, the current image is the best of those available. Kind regards, ] (]) 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. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 15:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
== Irish Bull Terrier IBT or Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier == | |||
I found the following images on Pixabay, all with a CC0 license: | |||
<gallery> | |||
File:Staffordshire-bull-terrier-white-2748733.jpg | |||
File:Staffordshire-bull-terrier-white-2983742.jpg | |||
File:Staffordshire-bull-terrier-black-2836990.jpg | |||
File:Staffordshire-bull-terrier-puppy-fawn-2166763.jpg | |||
</gallery> | |||
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. Breed Standard says {{xt|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.}} ] <sub>]</sub> ] 18:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
This breed came to pass in 1948 when the original SBT breed standard was changed by those in the show business via the English KC for smaller less athletic dogs. Sadly the old breed was never accepted and now allegedly classed as APBTs by the RSPCA even though they looked quite different and smaller. They are classified nowadays as the Irish Staffy as most are to be found on the emerald isle. | |||
Good choice! The two images below are the best in my opinion. Thank you. ] (]) 20:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
<gallery> | |||
File:Staffordshire-bull-terrier-white-2748733.jpg | |||
File:Staf LM.jpg | |||
</gallery> | |||
https://www.dogbreedinfo.com/irishstaffordshirebullterrierphotos.htm | |||
== Not to be confused with... == | |||
https://petkeen.com/dog-breeds/irish-staffordshire-bull-terrier/ ] (]) 14:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Neither of those are reliable sources. No kennel club seems to recognise the breed from my search. ] (]) 22:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
I think the Template message below needs a complement ] (]) 20:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC) {{Distinguish|Bull Terrier}} My suggestion:{{Distinguish|Bull Terrier|American Staffordshire Terrier}} ] (]) 20:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
== Popularity and Registrations. == | |||
== Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier == | |||
I can't speak to other countries but in New Zealand most mongrels/pit bull type dogs are registered as 'Staffordshire Bull Terrier' to avoid dangerous dog laws, the vast majority are not actually Staffies. So I'm wondering if this is true of other countries: if Staffordshire Bull Terrier is used to register banned/restricted dogs to get around the law. ] (]) 22:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
:As I understand it, in the UK, registration is mandatory for all dogs but doesn't have to include recording the dog's breed. Statista reckons there are only a few thousands Staffies registered per year (https://www.statista.com/statistics/921380/staffordshire-bull-terrier-registered-number-united-kingdom-uk/#:~:text=Number%20of%20Staffordshire%20Bull%20Terrier%20dogs%20registered%20in%20the%20UK%202011%2D2023&text=This%20statistic%20shows%20the%20number,Bull%20Terriers%20in%20the%20UK.), suggesting a total population in the vague ballpark of 50k or so given their average lifetime, but https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10370710/ counted 94k in a demographic study of 2.25 million dogs, which, given estimates of UK pet dog population ranging from 10m to 12m, implies there are actually more like half a million pet staffies - around 90% of which are presumably registered with no breed information. | |||
see http://www.staffordmall.com/1935standard.htm | |||
:Might be worth adding this stuff to the article in some way but will require care to do so in a way that is both accurate and also non-]. ] (]) 10:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Unreliable source== | |||
:The dog writer David Hancock has written a book (''Sporting terriers''<ref>David Hancock, ''Sporting terriers: their form, their function and their future'', Ramsbury, Wiltshire: The Crowood Press Ltd., 2009, {{ISBN|978-0-7566-6004-8}}.</ref>)and several articles mentioning the "Irish Staffie". A number of his previously published articles available on his website include , and . Unfortunately he is the only author I can find who makes mention of these dogs and he provides little actual information about their appearance. ] (]) 04:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC). | |||
{{ping|Atsme}} regarding this edit , are you sure that "Staffieclub.com" is a reliable source? ] (]) 00:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{sources-talk}} | |||
:Hi, Geogene. I believe, per WP guidelines, that context matters in this case, re: the breed being referred to as a "nanny dog". I don't see a need to add more sources unless you think it would be helpful. There are plenty out there to substantiate the term "nanny dog" has been used to describe them. It's also important to include that while many people believe dogs are like their "family", our article is pragmatic and factual in that each dog, regardless of breed, is an individual, and behavior is subject to many things; i.e., environment, early developmental stages, training, health, etc. without going into detail. Needing supervision appears to be a good encyclopedic alternative. ] ] ] 00:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Re: {{tq|There are plenty out there to substantiate the term "nanny dog" has been used to describe them.}} Probably there are, so why are we using that one? ] (]) 00:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I added more RS, but we need to keep in mind that the purpose of this paragraph is to clarify the origins of the ubiquitous term "nanny dog" etc., so readers will know its origins. To claim the AKC and a reputable kennel club are not reliable sources is a {{stretch}}. AKC is world-renowned as a breed and dog temperament authority and is listed as a reliable source by university animal science departments, such as The cited breed kennel club is also reputable at a professional and Now that the material has again been reverted with a frivolous edit summary, I requested admin help to avoid edit warring. ] ] ] 12:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::It is listed as a reliable source for breeding and agility. And even if so: https://0x0.st/Xg1Y.png I'm not sure why you're linking the breed club's own website to state it is reputable at an academic material. ] (]) 20:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::One of the sources that was cited and removed is this one: , from '']''. That one is undeniably reliable. Even if we decide to omit sourcing to kennel clubs, at least on the grounds that it probably isn't worth arguing about, it seems to me that some version of the reverted text could be restored, with that source. --] (]) 23:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::If so, it should be presented as an attributed POV to Lilian Rant, mentioning her position <s>as president of a breed club.</s> as a breed club magazine editor ] (]) 23:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::The use of that reference in text was a primary source for the original quote/origin. Not as an actual reference for the information, at least that is how it appears. | |||
::::::Also as Geogene points out it is attributed in the source so it should be attributed here, but without any real supporting RS it is just some random text and cannot be established as the origin of the phrase/idea. ] (]) 23:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::This is a historical claim, and if there were a "serious" historical article, I don't think this would be a good enough source. ] (]) 23:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I have no objection to attributing the description. I've looked some more, and there is this book: , which I obviously have not read (and I note that it appears to have been self-published), but the term is clearly a term that has been used. However, and this is, I think, important to note, according to a bunch of probably '''non'''-RS sources, such as these: , , the use of this term to describe Staffies is considered to be a "myth". So at this point, I'd be reluctant to describe the breed in this way ''as a fact'', but it may be reasonable to have some text about how it has been inaccurately described by this term. Here are some RS sources: , . --] (]) 00:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::This epidemiology paper says, {{tq|Second, the marketing of dog breeds as “nanny dogs” should be prohibited because there is no evidence that such dogs exist.}} So this is really just marketing speech. ] (]) 00:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::That's a valid point. I would not be opposed to, instead, adding a small amount of text to the page, noting the moniker, and indicating what such sources say about it. --] (]) 20:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 10:38, 12 October 2024
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Staffordshire Bull Terrier has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Irish bull terrier was copied or moved into Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Breed-Specific Legislation with this edit on 22 November 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Hazards of ownership
I would also like to draw attention to this paper , which says, Breeds such as Pit Bull terrier and Staffordshire Bull terrier are described in Breed Standards as “excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children” or “Highly intelligent and affectionate especially with children” despite their history as fighting dogs, their weight and strength. Their specific style of biting, “hold and tear”, can cause fatal injuries in minutes , and the biting combined with violent shaking exacerbates the injuries (Burns, Kusanale, & Brennan, 2011). Additionally, bull breeds are known to be aggressive to other dogs, which indirectly increases the risk of injuries to humans who may try to protect their own dogs from the attacking dog .
Geogene (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's an anyalysis that dates back to fatal dog attacks in Europe 1995–2016. Staffords are mentioned once, not because they attacked, but because whoever wrote the paper happened to mention them and provided information that dates back to 2011, over a decade ago, that has long since been debunked. Who still believes chicken soup cures the common cold?
Breeds such as Pit Bull terrier and Staffordshire Bull terrier are described in Breed Standards as “excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children” or “Highly intelligent and affectionate especially with children” despite their history as fighting dogs, their weight and strength. Their specific style of biting, “hold and tear”, can cause fatal injuries in minutes , and the biting combined with violent shaking exacerbates the injuries (Burns, Kusanale, & Brennan, 2011). Additionally, bull breeds are known to be aggressive to other dogs, which indirectly increases the risk of injuries to humans who may try to protect their own dogs from the attacking dog .
- That article provides -0- relevant information. It does state: This figure should be interpreted with caution, as FCI focuses on purebred dogs, which are a very small minority, and only provide crude estimates of total dog numbers. Hello? MINORITY. This article is about a purebred dog that is verifiable by two of the world's leading official dog registries; i.e., AKC and KC. All you are doing is further validating my position, which happens to be expert level in this topic area, not that it means anything to some WP editors - it's ok with me, I don't care - but it's funny that expert opinions only matter when one is seeking an expert opinion, but when those opinions do not agree with their POV, they don't count, do they? And your point for even mentioning this article? Seriously...cars are far more dangerous, and almost everyone of age has one. Better yet, let's go to the scary 18-wheelers - they are the "pit bulls" of the trucking industry. Compare the injury/death statistics and see how often those fatalities are mentioned in our articles about commercial trucking/trucks - you know, the deadly 18-wheelers. Let's create a list about 18-wheeler fatalities. You want to talk about dangerous to human life? There are about 471+/- million dogs in the world vs 278+/- commercial vehicles. Compare the death rates. In 2016, dogs killed 45 Europeans - and that is ALL OF EUROPE and ALL DOGS, not just Staffords - which translates to an incidence of 0.009 per 100,000 inhabitants. Dogs are animals, but trainable, considered domestic. So who is to blame for these fatalities with 18-wheelers? Is it the truck driver, the truck, the vehicle they hit? In the case of dogs, is it the dog, the dog owner, the person who was bitten? Let's look at the stats for 18-wheelers...in Texas alone in 2017 (which regularly has the highest number of fatal truck accidents) 556 fatalities were reported - that's a single state, not all of the US. California was second with 320, then Florida with 275. These stats are sourced to a law firm that appear to be the experts in this area. Corroborate the numbers - do the math. If you are truly concerned about human life to the point that you want to create fear in our readers who read this article thinking that these dogs are vicious, you are targeting the wrong topic area, and have totally missed the notability proportions for inclusion of such material. No pun intended, but you and the IP are barking up the wrong tree if you are looking for notable human deaths. At least with the vehicles, there are positive IDs as to the brand of vehicle/truck. With dogs, there is not. Think about it. Atsme 💬 📧 22:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- We're not talking about 18 wheelers, we're talking about Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Geogene (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- I read the paper, and it's a reliable source, but it's largely about variables other than the breed of the dog. There is one section that addresses the breed, and both of you have quoted in full the paragraph that is relevant to this page, as opposed to dogs in general. And the quoted paragraph treats it as "on the one hand, on the other hand", rather than an all-out warning against certain breeds. We can probably put something on the page from this, but it should not go beyond what the source says. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- In fact, the paragraph just before the paragraph about the terriers says in part:
Important information includes who bred and raised the dog in question, if there were more litters from same parental material, the criteria the breeders used when selecting the breeding stock and to whom is the breeder sells the puppies.
That's the authors making it clear that they regard such things as raising, training, and ownership, as distinguished from genetics, as being important in determining breed behavior. So they attribute some of it to the hold-and-tear genetics, but they also attribute some of it to human treatment. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)- It seems like the authors of that paper might have a problem with this article stating things like,
The Stafford is considered a family pet and companion dog, and is among the breeds recommended by the KC for families.
Geogene (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)- As you quoted them, the authors quote the Breed Standards as saying favorable things about them as good companions for families and children. Where the sentence pivots via "despite their history as...", I'm trying to evaluate what the authors intend, without trying to read something into it that isn't there. Are they saying that they are refuting what the Breed Standards say, or are they presenting two sides of the issue? I'm honestly not sure. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's marketing speech. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- I take your point about the potential for marketing speech in the Breed Standards, but I don't feel that this applies to the choice of scientists in a peer-reviewed scientific journal to quote it.
- I've been thinking about how to treat this source for this page. As I said earlier, I think it's a reliable source. I think it could be useful to summarize it on a page about dog ownership in general, as opposed to a page like this, about a single breed. The source includes a section about differences between breeds, much of which is about how people treat different breeds differently, with one paragraph that we have been discussing in detail here. The rest of the source is about things other than breed traits, focusing mostly on the demographics of people who are more or less at risk of harm from domestic dogs. The paper abstract includes nothing about breeds. So it's not a source primarily about Staffies. If we cite the source for that one paragraph, we have to put in an awful lot of context. Otherwise, we would be misrepresenting the source in a POV way. I think that would require a couple of sentences, at least, and not just one sentence. And I think that runs up against WP:DUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's marketing speech. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- As you quoted them, the authors quote the Breed Standards as saying favorable things about them as good companions for families and children. Where the sentence pivots via "despite their history as...", I'm trying to evaluate what the authors intend, without trying to read something into it that isn't there. Are they saying that they are refuting what the Breed Standards say, or are they presenting two sides of the issue? I'm honestly not sure. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- It seems like the authors of that paper might have a problem with this article stating things like,
- We're not talking about 18 wheelers, we're talking about Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Geogene (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Irish Bull Terrier IBT or Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier
This breed came to pass in 1948 when the original SBT breed standard was changed by those in the show business via the English KC for smaller less athletic dogs. Sadly the old breed was never accepted and now allegedly classed as APBTs by the RSPCA even though they looked quite different and smaller. They are classified nowadays as the Irish Staffy as most are to be found on the emerald isle.
https://www.dogbreedinfo.com/irishstaffordshirebullterrierphotos.htm https://petkeen.com/dog-breeds/irish-staffordshire-bull-terrier/ 88.97.39.126 (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Neither of those are reliable sources. No kennel club seems to recognise the breed from my search. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Popularity and Registrations.
I can't speak to other countries but in New Zealand most mongrels/pit bull type dogs are registered as 'Staffordshire Bull Terrier' to avoid dangerous dog laws, the vast majority are not actually Staffies. So I'm wondering if this is true of other countries: if Staffordshire Bull Terrier is used to register banned/restricted dogs to get around the law. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- As I understand it, in the UK, registration is mandatory for all dogs but doesn't have to include recording the dog's breed. Statista reckons there are only a few thousands Staffies registered per year (https://www.statista.com/statistics/921380/staffordshire-bull-terrier-registered-number-united-kingdom-uk/#:~:text=Number%20of%20Staffordshire%20Bull%20Terrier%20dogs%20registered%20in%20the%20UK%202011%2D2023&text=This%20statistic%20shows%20the%20number,Bull%20Terriers%20in%20the%20UK.), suggesting a total population in the vague ballpark of 50k or so given their average lifetime, but https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10370710/ counted 94k in a demographic study of 2.25 million dogs, which, given estimates of UK pet dog population ranging from 10m to 12m, implies there are actually more like half a million pet staffies - around 90% of which are presumably registered with no breed information.
- Might be worth adding this stuff to the article in some way but will require care to do so in a way that is both accurate and also non-WP:SYNTH. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Unreliable source
@Atsme: regarding this edit , are you sure that "Staffieclub.com" is a reliable source? Geogene (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, Geogene. I believe, per WP guidelines, that context matters in this case, re: the breed being referred to as a "nanny dog". I don't see a need to add more sources unless you think it would be helpful. There are plenty out there to substantiate the term "nanny dog" has been used to describe them. It's also important to include that while many people believe dogs are like their "family", our article is pragmatic and factual in that each dog, regardless of breed, is an individual, and behavior is subject to many things; i.e., environment, early developmental stages, training, health, etc. without going into detail. Needing supervision appears to be a good encyclopedic alternative. Atsme 💬 📧 00:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Re:
There are plenty out there to substantiate the term "nanny dog" has been used to describe them.
Probably there are, so why are we using that one? Geogene (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)- I added more RS, but we need to keep in mind that the purpose of this paragraph is to clarify the origins of the ubiquitous term "nanny dog" etc., so readers will know its origins. To claim the AKC and a reputable kennel club are not reliable sources is a . AKC is world-renowned as a breed and dog temperament authority and is listed as a reliable source by university animal science departments, such as ANSCI Cornell. The cited breed kennel club is also reputable at a professional and academic level. Now that the material has again been reverted with a frivolous edit summary, I requested admin help to avoid edit warring. Atsme 💬 📧 12:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is listed as a reliable source for breeding and agility. And even if so: https://0x0.st/Xg1Y.png I'm not sure why you're linking the breed club's own website to state it is reputable at an academic material. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- One of the sources that was cited and removed is this one: , from The New York Times. That one is undeniably reliable. Even if we decide to omit sourcing to kennel clubs, at least on the grounds that it probably isn't worth arguing about, it seems to me that some version of the reverted text could be restored, with that source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- If so, it should be presented as an attributed POV to Lilian Rant, mentioning her position
as president of a breed club.as a breed club magazine editor Geogene (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC) - The use of that reference in text was a primary source for the original quote/origin. Not as an actual reference for the information, at least that is how it appears.
- Also as Geogene points out it is attributed in the source so it should be attributed here, but without any real supporting RS it is just some random text and cannot be established as the origin of the phrase/idea. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is a historical claim, and if there were a "serious" historical article, I don't think this would be a good enough source. Geogene (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- If so, it should be presented as an attributed POV to Lilian Rant, mentioning her position
- One of the sources that was cited and removed is this one: , from The New York Times. That one is undeniably reliable. Even if we decide to omit sourcing to kennel clubs, at least on the grounds that it probably isn't worth arguing about, it seems to me that some version of the reverted text could be restored, with that source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is listed as a reliable source for breeding and agility. And even if so: https://0x0.st/Xg1Y.png I'm not sure why you're linking the breed club's own website to state it is reputable at an academic material. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have no objection to attributing the description. I've looked some more, and there is this book: , which I obviously have not read (and I note that it appears to have been self-published), but the term is clearly a term that has been used. However, and this is, I think, important to note, according to a bunch of probably non-RS sources, such as these: , , the use of this term to describe Staffies is considered to be a "myth". So at this point, I'd be reluctant to describe the breed in this way as a fact, but it may be reasonable to have some text about how it has been inaccurately described by this term. Here are some RS sources: , . --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- This epidemiology paper says,
Second, the marketing of dog breeds as “nanny dogs” should be prohibited because there is no evidence that such dogs exist.
So this is really just marketing speech. Geogene (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)- That's a valid point. I would not be opposed to, instead, adding a small amount of text to the page, noting the moniker, and indicating what such sources say about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- This epidemiology paper says,
- I added more RS, but we need to keep in mind that the purpose of this paragraph is to clarify the origins of the ubiquitous term "nanny dog" etc., so readers will know its origins. To claim the AKC and a reputable kennel club are not reliable sources is a . AKC is world-renowned as a breed and dog temperament authority and is listed as a reliable source by university animal science departments, such as ANSCI Cornell. The cited breed kennel club is also reputable at a professional and academic level. Now that the material has again been reverted with a frivolous edit summary, I requested admin help to avoid edit warring. Atsme 💬 📧 12:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Re: