Misplaced Pages

Talk:Catahoula bulldog: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:08, 14 August 2019 editGråbergs Gråa Sång (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers57,629 edits a little early← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:36, 24 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,443,342 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. (Fix Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(30 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Old AfD |date=27 January 2013 (UTC) |result='''keep''' |page=Catahoula Bulldog}}
| algo = old(45d)
| archive = Talk:Catahoula bulldog/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 33
| maxarchivesize = 70K
| archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Dogs|importance=}}
}}
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|
{{Old AfD multi |date=27 January 2013 (UTC) |result='''keep''' |page=Catahoula Bulldog |date2=6 August 2019 |result2='''No consensus''' |page2=Catahoula bulldog}}


}}
{{WikiProject Dogs|class=Start|importance=low|breeds=yes}}
__TOC__
{{WikiProject United States|class=start|importance=low}}


== Tom Stodghill and the Animal Research Foundation (ARF) dog breed registry ==
==Photo==
A photo is being obtained from a breeder. ] (]) 23:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


For over six decades in pre-internet days (1940's-mid 2010's), Animal Research Foundation (ARF) was a ] registry for upcoming, new, or rare breeds (particularly 'stock dogs') that had not yet been accepted as a breed by AKC or UKC. Its purpose was the establishment of a database of pedigrees for multiple rare dog breeds. () Such a collection of pedigrees was an important step toward recognition of a breed by any national kennel club, as it allowed the cooperation of multiple breeders who may not even know of the others and the compilation of hundreds or thousands of pedigrees which was required by such kennel clubs as AKC and UKC. I can't even begin to imagine the size of his bank of filing cabinets!
My name is Sherri Wilson.I own and operate Wilson's Kennels. I specialize in Catahoula Bulldogs.If you want an example photo I would be glad to provide one of a 50/50 cross. The photo you have is an awful example and quite embarrassing.] (]) 13:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


ARF provided this valuable registration service for decades before the 1991 creation of the ] and the 1995 establishment of AKC's ] (which requires 40 years of breed history ''before'' you can even apply for FSS status ).
The article in general, I believe, is quite embarrassing. There is a plurality of grammar mistakes, the likes of which I don't have time to fix right now, and no note on how "75%/25%" crosses could be, though unlikely, 100% of either breed (to put it simply, C stands for Catahoula Leopard Dog and B for Bulldog: CB x CB can equal CC, CB, CB, or BB. There are, of course, more than one gene per breed, but my point is illustrated).


Do not think for one minute that such a valuable service would be provided without fees; every single breed club charges fees for pedigree registration by their participating breeders, and going through AKC's FSS program for breed recognition is ''very'' pricey. That doesn't make the ARF service a "pay for play" (a derogatory term coined for ARF on Misplaced Pages Talk pages to argue about citations from ARF websites, of which I found two in the Wayback Machine, and ). Don't paint the ARF as a "vanity registration" like so many of the internet fly-by-night services are today, where any dog owner can receive a pretty predigree certificate for their dog of any breed or mix of breeds, like a ] book. ARF only registered dog breeds not yet accepted by the AKC or UKC, including the foundation of registry of the ] before it was officially recognized by the ] in 1999. Add to that the early registry for the English Shepherd, Catahoula Leopard, Australian Cattledog Queensland Heeler, Texas Heeler, English Bulldogge, Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog and Australian Shepherd. ARF did NOT pass out registration certificates to any and all dogs just by paying a fee. Breeders had to be certified to enter their dogs, and for each dog they had to provide a full pedigree and front and side photos of their dogs. You could pay ARF to get a ''copy'' of your dog's registration, but you couldn't pay ARF to ''register'' your dog unless you were the breeder and you were a certified breeder with ARF. Such restrictions were no different than the current AKC FSS program or any other breed club or major or national kennel club and registry.


Operated by Tom Stodghill, an importer and breeder of dogs who was interested in genetics, Stodghill had more ], business goodwill, and experience in dog breeding than you could shake a stick at — probably more than all the combined experience of us paper-pushers on Misplaced Pages today. The fact that ARF is no longer in business is NOT a reflection of the good works they performed and the reliable source nature of citations to their old websites as found in the ]. ] has no legitimate place in Misplaced Pages.
Here is the Breed Standard used by for conformation and trials. I would like to see this put in the article. I just don't quite understand the codes to correctly reference. This standard was put together by a few different breeders and CB enthusiast. If someone could help me get this in the article using the correct codes I would greatly appreciate it.


— ] (]) 15:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Background: The Catahoula Bulldog originated over 100 years ago in America. The Catahoula Bulldog is created from a direct cross between two specific and high quality breeds: the Louisiana Catahoula Leopard Dog and the American Bulldog, with the selection of the breeding parents being dependent upon desired working ability, rather than appearance. The Catahoula Bulldog is the result of combining a perfectly suited breed, the Louisiana Catahoula Leopard Dog, with another well suited breed, the American Bulldog, to gain certain characteristics that you may not get by leaving the two separate. They were originally popular in the southern United States for their strong working abilities for tasks including but not limited to hunting, working stock, protection, tracking, as well as being a devoted companion.
:Too much off-topic-for-Misplaced Pages stuff in this to address it {{em|all}} directly. But some quick points: "rare breed" that is "not yet accepted" by any major registry as being promoted by some minor organization = ]. WP doesn't cover ]. To the extent that some "experimental" breeds get just enough coverage that they should be mentioned somewhere, we need ] to go along with ]; the cat one has successfully been used as a merge target for iffy articles that would likely not survive AfD, but about subjects that are just verifiable enough that they're probably worth mentioning in a list, in summary form with some basic details.<p>It may or may not be that ARF itself is notable and should have an article; whether it is and should will be determined by coverage of ARF in multiple, reliable, {{em|independent}} sources (see ]).</p><p>Whether ARF materials are reliable sources is going to depend on the topic and the source and what exactly the source is being cited for. It is not evidence that some small population of dogs constitute a breed, in any sense that WP or any other encyclopedia would care about, since ARF's explicit purpose was providing pedigree registrations for dogs that were not yet recognized by any major organization as a breed. An ARF citation does not help establish notability, because the organization was not independent of the subject matter (its entire bread-and-butter and its {{lang|fr|raison d'etre}} was cataloguing and promoting alleged breeds no one else accepted).</p><p>But ARF might well be a great source for characteristics of a particular experimental and now-defunct breed, in absence of a better one, and for dates like when breed establishment efforts first began. ARF not being entirely non-profit doesn't make them an unreliable source; most publishers are for-profit, and other organizations involved in dog breeding charge fees for various things. What makes AKC a more generally reliable source is ]; the real world treats them and various similar national and international organizations as authoritative on dog breeds, but largely doesn't even known ARF existed or that ARBA does (and ARBA is arguably much more sketchy than ARF was).</p><p>All this ranting on various pages about pit bulls and their definition and kill rates at dog-catcher agencies, and yadda-yadda, really has nothing to do with any of this (or whether to keep/delete/merge a redundant Cahoula dog article, etc.). Anyone whose username almost certainly resolves to "NoMoPBs" probably has no business writing anything about pit bulls {{lang|la|pro}} or {{lang|la|con}} on Misplaced Pages, especially when they seem to have little intent to do anything at the project other than "lobby" about pit bulls. See ], ], ], ], etc. Someone on a tear like this about another breed got topic-banned just a few months ago. Let's not go there.<br /> —&thinsp;]&thinsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)</p>
***It is important to Note that the Catahoula Bulldog is a recognized cross between ONLY the Louisiana Catahoula Leopard Dog and the American Bulldog. No other bulldog breeds will be considered in registering as a Catahoula Bulldog.
General Description: The Catahoula Bulldog is a medium to large sized dog that is an athletic, non-bulky, free breathing, and versatile working dog. They are protective, loyal companions and working partners with a high eagerness to please. They are an animated and personable dog, sometimes being very vocal. Aloofness with strangers is acceptable. Outright aggressiveness to people or other animals unless provoked is unacceptable. Generally the Catahoula Bulldog possesses the intelligence, endurance, and prey drive of the Catahoula, while being slightly heavier bodied with a robust skull, strong jaw, and mild temperament. The Catahoula Bulldog may be 50% Catahoula Leopard Dog and 50% American Bulldog in a first generation cross, with succeeding generation crosses of up to 75%-25% mix in either direction.
General Appearance: The Catahoula Bulldog should generate the impression of great strength, agility, endurance and exhibit a well-knit, sturdy, compact frame with the absence of excessive bulk. Males are characteristically larger, heavier boned and more masculine than females. The Catahoula Bulldog has a short smooth coat which comes in a wide variety of colors ranging from any solid, leopard, merle, patched, brindle, or any combination of these. Eyes can be any color or combination of colors (cracked or marbled) in one or both eyes. Tails can be long, cropped, or naturally bobbed in any length. They are medium to large sized dogs, weight always being proportionate to the body, and should not be less than 18 inches at the withers.
The Catahoula Bulldog is categorized in three types for judging purposes:
75/25 Type describes 75% Louisiana Catahoula Leopard Dog and 25% American Bulldog
50/50 Type describes 50% Louisiana Catahoula Leopard Dog and 50% American Bulldog.
25/75 Type describes 25% Louisiana Catahoula Leopard Dog and 75% American Bulldog. This does not limit a cross to these exact percentages, and any variation is acceptable so long as it does not exceed crosses of up to 75%-25% mix in either direction to insure preservation of both breed traits to be apparent. The main characteristics of each individual dog will differ, but may generally be determined by what percentage is higher, most often the differences being in body type or size, but there are also other subtle differences.
Disqualifications: Dogs that are deaf or blind. Males without two testicles clearly descended due to a medical or genetic condition. Dogs with retina deformations and or microphthalmia.
NOTES:1. Males or females can be altered and this should not be considered a fault or reason for disqualification. 2. When showing teeth in the ring a handler can ask if he/she can show them to the judge to prevent any unsafe occurrence. 3. Owner/handler should know how to properly restrain the dog with expert showmanship while being inspected by the judge.
75/25 Type Catahoula Bulldog
The 75/25 Type Catahoula Bulldog is any with higher percentage Catahoula than Bulldog. This type is a highly intelligent and somewhat independent dog, therefore not always easily trained. They have a good work ethic and possess a natural prey drive towards smaller animals. Early, thorough socialization is important. They are loyal companions and protectors. Showing caution with new people or dogs, as well as assertiveness toward other dogs is common. They do not back down easily, and most are not interested in being "second best." As a working breed, 75/25 Type Catahoula Bulldogs have a lot of energy. They need to have a job or be exercised and mentally stimulated regularly to avoid becoming bored which can lead to destructive or unwanted behavior such as chewing and digging.
75/25 Type Size: Males: 23-27 inches at the withers and may weigh from 70-110 pounds. Females: 22-26 inches at the withers and may weigh from 60 to 90 pounds. There should be a noticeable size difference in males and females. The weight should be proportional to body size.
75/25 Type Head: Powerfully built head with well defined cheeks and a moderate muzzle. The length of skull and muzzle are approximately equal in length and show a well-defined stop from muzzle to skull. Gender differences will be apparent in the characteristics of the head.
75/25 Type Muzzle and Teeth: Medium to Long in length, the muzzle should be broad at the base and taper towards the nose when viewed from the front. Lips may be tight or slightly pendulous with pigment of any color or combination of colors. Skin may be slightly loose, but there should not be excessive skin or dewlap present. Large wolf-like teeth are preferred, even or scissor bites are accepted. Extreme under bite or overbite is not acceptable.
75/25 Type Eyes and Nose: The eyes may be any color including any variation or combination of brown, amber, green, blue, glass, cracked, or marbled, with no eye color or combination having preference over another. Eyes may be round or almond shaped and of medium size. Black and pink eye rims accepted. Dogs with retina deformations and/or microphthalmia are not acceptable. The nose may be any color or combination of colors.
75/25 Type Ears: The ears may be button over, medium in length, moderate in size, and proportionally wide at the base. They should fold over and be generally triangular in shape with a rounded tip. The top of the ear fold is level or just slightly below the top line of the skull. Rose type ears are unacceptable and are a fault in the 75/25 Type.
75/25 Type Neck and Shoulder: The neck should be muscular and of good length and widens as it blends into the shoulders. Excessive skin or "dewlap" should not be present in this type. The shoulder muscles are longer and smoother in appearance and the forelegs should be set moderately apart but feet should not toe in or out. The foreleg should be at least 60% of the dog's total height.
75/25 Type Chest, Back, and Loin: The chest should be deep and moderately wide without being excessively wide as to throw the shoulders out. The back should be of medium length, strong and broad. The topline should be level or slightly higher toward the rear. The loin should show a moderate tuck. Faults: sway back, narrow or shallow chest, lack of tuck up.
75/25 Hindquarters: The hindquarters should be well muscled and should not appear thin and weak. The angulation of hindquarters should be in proportion with the forequarters. In this type, a slightly elevated rear end may be apparent due to longer muscles and the hips being slightly narrower.
75/25 Legs and Feet: Legs are strong and straight with moderate to heavy bone. Front legs should not set too close together or too far apart. Rear legs should have a visible angulation of the stifle joint. Faults: in at the elbows or excessively bowlegged. The feet are of medium size with toes that are well arched. The feet should be webbed and somewhat oval in shape. Nails should appear strong and healthy. Flat toes or “cat feet” are a fault.
75/25 Type Tail: Tail is thick at the base, tapering to a point toward the tip. It may be long, docked, or naturally bobbed in any length with no preference of one style over another.
75/25 Coat: Short to medium, straight, coats are desired. Long and fuzzy coast are not acceptable, although a slight feathering on the underside of the tail, back of legs, and chest may be present. Coats may be any color including but not limited to white, pied, brindled, leopard, patched, merle, solid. All colors and combinations of colors are accepted with no preference over another.
75/25 Movement: The gait is balanced, smooth, powerful and unhindered suggesting agility with easy, ground covering strides, showing strong driving action in the hind quarters with corresponding reach in front. As speed increases the feet move toward the center line of the body to maintain balance. The top line remains firm and mostly level, parallel to the line of motion. Head and tail carriage should reflect that of a proud, confident, and alert animal. A tucked tail should not be considered a fault in this type, as they may have a more cautious demeanor with a lowered tail and will usually only display a rigid or curved tail when in an assertive or excited state. Faults: Any suggestion of clumsiness, tossing and/or rolling of the body, crossing or interference of front or rear legs, short or stilted steps, twisting joints, pacing, paddling, or weaving. Similar movement faults are to be penalized according to the degree to which they interfere with the ability of the dog to perform.
75/25 Temperament: This type should be a confident and outgoing dog, eager to please. They should be protective but should not be aggressive without provocation. For this type, showing caution with strangers and assertiveness toward other dogs is common and should not be considered a fault.
50/50 Type Catahoula Bulldog
50/50 Type Catahoula Bulldog is one with close to equal percentage of Bulldog and Catahoula, and may include up to 60/40 either direction. This type exudes the most blended traits from both breeds with more subtle differences. The predominant traits may lean towards one direction or another depending on the individual dog. They are loyal, intelligent, and on average, easily trained. They are generally quirky and animated at home or in familiar settings, and are guarded around strangers. They have a prey drive, but when well socialized do well with other house pets and small animals. As they are a working breed, mental stimulation and exercise is important to avoid destructive or unwanted behavior.
50/50 Type Size: Males: 23-27 inches at the withers and may weigh from 70-110 pounds. Females: 22-26 inches at the withers and may weigh from 60 to 90 pounds. There should be noticeable size difference in males and females. The weight should be proportional to body size with a deep chest and a pronounced tuck under the rear flanks/loin.
50/50 Type Head: Powerfully built head with well defined cheeks and a moderate muzzle. The length of muzzle should be at minimum 30-45% the length of the head when viewed from the side, and show a well-defined "stop" from muzzle to skull. A slight median furrow between the eyes is acceptable. Gender differences will be apparent in the characteristics of the head.
50/50 Type Muzzle and Teeth: Medium to Long in length, the muzzle should be broad at the base and taper towards the nose when viewed from the front. Lips may be tight or slightly pendulous with pigment of any color or combination of colors. Moderate loose skin around the jowls is acceptable. Large wolf-like teeth are preferred, even, reverse scissor, or scissor bites are accepted. Extreme under bite or overbite is not acceptable.
50/50 Type Eyes and Nose: The eyes may be any color including any variation or combination of brown, amber, green, blue, glass, cracked, or marbled, with no eye color or combination having preference over another. Eyes may be round or almond shaped, and of medium size. Black and pink eye rims accepted. Popped out eyes, dogs with retina deformations and or microphthalmia are not acceptable. The nose may be any color or combination of colors.
50/50 Type Ears: The ears may be rose or button over, medium in length, moderate in size, and proportionally wide at the base. They should fold over and be generally triangular in shape with a rounded tip. The top of the ear fold is level or just slightly below the top line of the skull.
50/50 Type Neck and Shoulder: Neck is muscular and of good length and may possess a slight arch, widens as it blends into the shoulders. Loose skin or dewlap may be present in this type but not excessive. The shoulder muscles are longer and smoother in appearance and the forelegs should be set moderately apart but feet should not toe in or toe out.
50/50 Type Chest, Back, and Loin: The chest should be deep and moderately wide without being excessively wide as to throw the shoulders out. The back should be of medium length, strong and broad. The topline should be level or slightly higher toward the rear. The loin should show a moderate tuck. Faults: sway back, narrow or shallow chest, lack of tuck up.
50/50 Hindquarters: The hindquarters should be well muscled and should not appear thin and weak. The angulation of hindquarters should be in proportion with the forequarters. In this type, a slightly elevated rear end may be apparent due to longer muscles and the hips being slightly narrower.
50/50 Legs and Feet: Legs are strong and straight with moderate to heavy bone. Front legs should not be set too close together or too far apart. Rear legs should have a visible angulation of the stifle joint. Faults: in at the elbows or excessively bowlegged. The feet are of medium size with toes that are well arched. The feet should be webbed and somewhat oval in shape. Nails should appear strong and healthy. Flat toes or “cat feet” are a fault.
50/50 Type Tail: Tail is thick at the base, tapering to a point toward the tip. It may be long, docked, or naturally bobbed in any length with no preference of one style over another.
50/50 Coat: Short to medium, straight, coats are desired. Long or fuzzy coats are not acceptable, although a slight feathering on the underside of the tail, backs of legs and chest may be present. Coats may be any color including but not limited to white, pied, brindled, leopard, patched, merle, solid. All colors and combinations of colors are accepted with no preference over another.
50/50 Movement: The gait is balanced and smooth, powerful and unhindered suggesting agility with easy, ground covering strides, showing strong driving action in the hind quarters with corresponding reach in front. As speed increases the feet move toward the center line of the body to maintain balance. The top line remains firm and mostly level, parallel to the line of motion. Head and tail carriage should reflect that of a proud, confident, and alert animal. A tucked tail should not be considered a fault in this type, as they may have a more cautious demeanor with a lowered tail and will usually only display a rigid or curved tail when in an assertive or excited state. Faults: Any suggestion of clumsiness, tossing and/or rolling of the body, crossing or interference of front or rear legs, short or stilted steps, twisting joints, pacing, paddling, or weaving. Similar movement faults are to be penalized according to the degree to which they interfere with the ability of the dog to perform.
50/50 Temperament: This type should be a confident and outgoing dog, self assured and eager to please. They should be protective but should not be outwardly aggressive without provocation. For this type, a slight aloofness with strangers and other dogs is acceptable and should not be considered a fault.
25/75 Type Catahoula Bulldog
The 25/75 type Catahoula Bulldog is one with higher percentage Bulldog than Catahoula. This type has a noticeable bully appearance. They are generally mild in temperament and have friendly outgoing personalities. While gentle and nurturing with their family, they can become aggressive upon a threat or provocation. They are expected to know the difference between a threat and non-threat situation. They have less stamina than the higher Catahoula percentages, with a more laid back or mellow demeanor. Though they are a working dog and still need adequate mental stimulation and exercise, they may be more content being a companion with less work load.
25/75 Type Size: Males: 22 to 25 inches at the withers and weigh from 75 to 120 pounds. Females: 21 to 25 inches at the withers, 60 to 90 pounds.
25/75 Type Head: Robust skull, medium in length and broad with pronounced muscular cheeks. Muzzle is shorter in length than skull but must still be free breathing and should not be overly flat as to not hinder working ability. A dog that is not free breathing is a major fault and is unacceptable. Gender differences of the head may be less noticeable with this type.
25/75 Type Muzzle and Teeth: Muzzle that is short to medium length, and may be square and broad. Lips should be full to pendulous and there may be loose skin but not in excess. Teeth must be large and strong, canines may be shorter and thicker. Reverse scissor bite is preferred, moderate under bite, scissor, or even bite is acceptable. Extreme under bite or overbite is not acceptable.
25/75 Type Eyes and Nose: The eyes may be any color including any variation or combination of brown, amber, green, blue, glass, cracked, or marbled, with no eye color or combination having preference over another. Eyes may be round or almond shaped, and of medium size. Black and pink eye rims accepted. Popped out eyes, dogs with retina deformations and or microphthalmia are not acceptable. The nose may be any color or combination of colors.
25/75 Type Ears: Button over or rose types accepted, ears may be short to medium in length.
25/75 Type Neck and Shoulder: Neck should be muscular, medium in length, slightly arched, tapering from shoulders to head. Dewlap and loose skin may be present but not excessive. The shoulders should be very muscular with wide sloping blades but shoulders set so elbows are not angled out.
25/75 Type Chest, Back, and Loin: The chest should be deep and moderately wide without being excessively wide as to throw the shoulders out. The back should be of medium length, strong and broad. The topline should be level or may be slightly higher toward the rear. The loin should show a slight tuck. Faults: sway back, narrow or shallow chest.
25/75 Hindquarters: Hindquarters should be very broad, well muscled and in proportion to the shoulders. Rear stance should be clearly pronounced. Narrow hips are a fault. 25/75 Legs and Feet: Legs are strong and straight with moderate to heavy bone. Front legs should not set too close together nor too far apart. Rear legs should have a visible angulation of the stifle joint. Faults: in at the elbows or excessively bowlegged. The feet are of medium size with toes that are well arched. The feet should be webbed and somewhat oval in shape. Nails should appear strong and healthy. Flat toes or “cat feet” are a fault.
25/75 Type Tail: Tail is thick at the base, tapering to a point toward the tip. It may be long, docked, or naturally bobbed in any length with no preference of one style over another.
25/75 Coat: Short to medium, straight, coats are desired. Long or fuzzy coats are not acceptable, although slight feathering on the underside of the tail, backs of legs and chest may be present. Coats may be any color including but not limited to white, pied, brindled, leopard, patched, merle, solid. All colors and combinations of colors are accepted, none with preference over another.
25/75 Movement: The gait is balanced, smooth, powerful and unhindered suggesting agility with easy, ground-covering strides showing strong driving action in the hind quarters with corresponding reach in front. As speed increases the feet move toward the center line of the body to maintain balance. The top line remains firm and mostly level, parallel to the line of motion. Head and tail carriage should reflect that of a proud, confident, and alert animal. A tucked tail should not be considered a fault in this type, as they may have a more cautious demeanor with a lowered tail and will usually only display a rigid or curved tail when in an assertive or excited state. Faults: Any suggestion of clumsiness, tossing and/or rolling of the body, crossing or interference of front or rear legs. Similar movement faults are to be penalized according to the degree to which they interfere with the ability of the dog to perform.
25/75 Temperament: This type should be a confident and outgoing dog. They should be self assured, eager to please, and protective. They should not be outwardly aggressive without extreme provocation. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


::{{reply to|AReaderOutThataway}} I'm sorry you misunderstood the purpose of my posting about ARF here. One editor had just removed all (Wayback Machine) citations pointing to the ARF website. The citations were used to support descriptions of this dog breed, like its appearance. The article was then left with one remaining citation. Then the chopping editor snarked incredulously at another editor for having an opinion on the AfD about the notability of the breed based on "an article with no citations". Then they came here to participate in the "pay for play" slander. I couldn't stand for it any more so I wrote the essay.
==References and "recognition"==
The "Animal Research Foundation" appears to be a pay-for-registration outfit; , and . As such, I've removed the claims that the Catahoula Bulldog is a "recognized" breed, as it's not recognized by any major registries. ]<sub>(])</sub> 00:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


::The topic of ] was just one of several on the chopping block. After I noticed several breeds had already been chopped out of the ] article, including Catahoula bulldog, Boxer, Bulldogge Brasileiro, Ca de Bou, Alano Español, and probably a few others I don't recall, the following articles were placed on the AfD chopping block: ], ], and ]. I was trying to save the information from complete annihilation. The reasons given for AfD was spurious at best and the suggested plan was <u>complete removal of all content related to such "unrecognized breeds"</u> including all articles and all mention within other articles. There was no constructive suggestion (similar to yours) to place the content off in some corner of Misplaced Pages, not even a suggestion of Merge was made. Instead, the breeds had been targetted for complete censorship, including removal of mention from within other articles, such as the recent hatchet job that had been done in the ] article prior to the three AfD nominations. I just spent the last week trying to restore and/or upgrade the articles and keep the content from being lost to arbitrary-reason censorship. There is no disagreement about what is a "kennel club recognized breed". However, I absolutely believe that breeds (or types or rare breeds or whatever you want to label them) should not be ERASED from Misplaced Pages.


::'''So if you think there is activism going on, perhaps you should be looking for who is putting in the effort for causing radical changes, loss of content, and censorship. Then look to see who is trying to practice stewardship of the information.'''
I would like to add that ARF has recognized the Catahoula Bulldog since the 50s. Some other registries that more recently recognize the CB are , , . AND MBR is the first registry to set a standard, hold conformations and have trials specifically for the Catahoula Bulldog.
(])</sub> 00:11, 4 May 2012


::BTW, I was just about to click "Thanks" for your well-written and expressed opinion under my ARF essay until I got to the last paragraph. Completely shocking and so off-the-mark. I think you have me confused with someone else. Please re-research and retract.<br>— ] (]) 08:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The article says "Al Walker of Animal Research Foundation has stated that the Catahoula Bulldog is recognized as 50% Catahoula Leopard and 50% American Bulldog ..." but has no links or references. Who is Al Walker? What is Animal Research Foundation? The name alone is extremely suspicious. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::I see you've changed your user name. If your intention for doing so is aimed at improving interactions with other members of Project Dog, I highly recommend a change in attitude as well. The aspersions you've been casting against others - as what you've done here - is not helpful, and neither are your attempts to include unverifiable material cited to unreliable sources to the extent of making a ]. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 21:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
::::Just can't keep your discussions about CONTENT, can you? ] — ] (]) 23:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::Interestingly, the other party that got topic-banned earlier this year for dog-related ranting and advocacy also claimed that pretty much any criticism of their behavior on WP was "harassment". Becoming more and more strident will not convince anyone you are right, only that you're not a constructive presence (see ], ], ], ], ], etc.).<p>Most of the pages mentioned above with "chopping block" hyperbole are obvious candidates for ]-style merger. They're either non-notable experimental breeds, marketing names for crossbreeds (AKA mutts, mongrels), one organization's alternative name for something we already have an article about under another name, or simply a redundant page (if we have ] and ], then ] serves no purpose at all. It's actually worse than useless due to ambiguity. ] is a breed, and you want to treat it like a breed group. The mistake here is in assuming that anything with ulldog in its name can simply be call "a bulldog" or "a bulldog breed" in an encyclopedic, non-confusing, non-confused manner. It can't. It's like saying that ] and ] should both be covered in a "Attacks" article because they have the same word in their names. That kind of reasoning failure is a ] (specifically a mixture of ], ], ], and ]). A similar example would be all the naturally bobtailed cat breeds, most of which have "bobtail" or "bob" in their names, but which are not closely related (they are separate mutations, other that the ] and ] sharing the same gene; the ], ], ], and others all have different mutations from those two and from each other, and they do not form a breed group, nor a good subject for a list article on WP, for essentially the same reason that we don't have lists of blonde actors or shoe brands with hexagonal tread marks).</p><p>Finally, please see ], when it comes to arguments along the lines of "I'm saving information" and "don't {{em|delete}} my topic". These are not a valid arguments here. We absolutely should, and do, delete information and entire topics when they do not make the encyclopedic cut (] for details, and ] for entire topics).<br /> —&thinsp;]&thinsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)</p>


== Old news ==
{{u|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}}, please read the above discussion. The book you cited references a questionable registry that is non-existant today and was challenged back in 2008 - for good cause. Please rethink your citation. Unverifiability and poor/questionable sources explain why this article is at AfD. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 11:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


I removed the recently added section titled “In the news” as the cited sources were to a 1977 report in a local newspaper (behind a paywall), and the other was a 2007 report involving 2 different named breeds of dogs that killed a woman in Friendswood, TX for the following reasons:
:Ok, I have no view/understanding on that, feel free to revert if that is consensus. I found what seemed to be a decent non-SPS and thought "oh good." ] (]) 12:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
# neither are considered “news” as both were published over a decade ago
# one is behind a paywall and while not prohibited, non-paywall sources are preferred
# the 2007 report initially misrepresented the attack as a “pit bull” attack until the victims son called one of the dogs a Catahoula bulldog, a type of dog which remains unverifiable so we must be careful how it is worded. The other dogs at the scene of the fatal attack were identified as a ] and a 3rd, an ]. No one witnessed the attack or what might have provoked it. The 2007 incident is already listed in ].
There is still work to do in an effort to verify such a breed of dog exists, or if use of the name “Catahoula bulldog” is another misused name as is “pit bull”. I’m of the mind that RS will substantiate the latter. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 13:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

===Old news is still news and is acceptable in Misplaced Pages per ] policy===
*Though an editor is welcome to find a non-paywall source to ''replace'' a citation made by another editor, there is no Misplaced Pages policy to support ''removing'' another editor's citation and related text on the basis that "it was behind a paywall". Citation that was used=<ref name="PP">{{cite news|last= |first= |author-link=<!--no byline--> |title=‘Old Yeller’ To The Rescue |newspaper=Prattville Progress |date=August 11, 1977 |url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/581641940/?terms=%22Catahoula%2Bbulldog |page=11}}</ref> <small>(pinging {{u|Kiyoweap}}, the original editor)</small>
*The Houston Chronicle news article which was cited<ref name="HChr">{{cite news|last=Wise |first=Lindsay |author-link=<!--Lindsay Wise --> |title=Ruling: Friendswood woman died of dog attack |newspaper=] |date=March 19, 2007 |url=http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Ruling-Friendswood-woman-died-of-dog-attack-1543604.php |quotation=Catahoula Bulldog.. is a cross between an ] and a ]}}</ref> was followed by further reports delineating which dog was responsible. After autopsy there was no question which of the three dogs was the primary cause of death (the Catahoula Bulldog), which was the secondary (Golden Retriever), and which was not involved (Australian Shepherd).
**To wit, ''"Galveston County Medical Examiners found bite marks matching those of bulldog, and at least one matching the retriever."''<ref>{{cite news |last1=Gutierrez Henson |first1=Liz |title=Second dog in fatal maulling is destroyed |url=https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/article/Second-dog-in-fatal-maulling-is-destroyed-9601483.php |accessdate=August 29, 2019 |date=April 3, 2007 }}</ref> and, ''"Rushing died from multiple dog bites — primarily those of the bulldog, the hief said."''<ref>{{cite news |first=Ben |last=Tinsley |title=Dog in fatal attack to be put to death |date=March 29, 2007 |place=] |newspaper=] |url=http://galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=58d5e9730ffd37a5 |accessdate=August 29, 2019 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120405135532/http://galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=58d5e9730ffd37a5 |archivedate=April 5, 2012 }}</ref>
**I have seen no reports mentioning the dog as a pit bull or pit bull cross.
**The fatality event is recorded in Misplaced Pages on the page ], scroll down to date March 16.
*Reproducing here the paragraph/note from the removed citation=<ref name=nast>{{cite book|ref=harv|last=Nast |first=Heidi J. |author-link=<!--Heidi J. Nast--> |title=Pit bulls, slavery, and whiteness in the mid- to late-nineteenth century U. S.: geographical trajectories: primary sources |editor-last=Gillespie |editor-first=Kathryn |editor-link=<!--Kathryn Gillespie--> |editor-last2=Collard |editor-first2=Rosemary-Claire |editor-link2=<!--Rosemary-Claire Collard --> |work=Critical Animal Geographies: Politics, Intersections and Hierarchies in a Multispecies World |publisher=Routledge |year=2015 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iT5yBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA142 |page=142, n5<!--127–146-->|isbn=1-317-64927-3}}</ref>: which says "Because there was no standardization at the time of slavery, there were no discrete breed names. Today, many hunters claim a variety of dogs to be ideal catch dogs, such as the Catahoula Bulldog, Cane Corso, and Dogo Argentino, the latter two recently being crossbred with fighting pit bull kinds so as to increase their size. Most of the literature on hog and cattle catch dogs circulates informally through the Internet or vanity presses. See, for instance, Kelley (2009) and Adele (2012). Note that these catch dogs are different from those used in sheepherding." <small>(Reproduced here because google books is notoriously random about whether or not it will show you the page you requested; as in my case it would not display page 142 until I futzed with it.)</small>

] (]) 17:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
{{sources-talk}}
::Trying to establish notability for an unrecognized breed based purely on anecdotal evidence is ludicrous at best. Misidentifying dogs is a widespread problem as I've pointed out in other discussions, and cited the information to high quality RS. As for media misidentifying the dog as a pit bull mix see the following:
:*''CHAPTER 3: Responses to the Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters'' -
::{{talk quote|Similarly, the agency should not attempt to identify the dog by breed. Breed identification of dogs of unknown pedigree is extremely unreliable and, in many cases, later investigation will require a retraction.14 For example, in March 2007 in Friendswood, Texas, police originally reported that a dog believed to have killed a woman was a "pit bull." Subsequent to this report, a family member informed the authorities that the dog was a mix between an American bulldog and a Catahoula. A correction was then published.}}
:* - opinion piece by Tod Robberson in 2008, a year later: Pamela Rushing - 50 yrs old - Friendswood, TX - March 16, 2007 - '''Death by family pit bull-mix'''
:* - see the note following their report: {{xt|''NOTE: Due to the closeness in nature of the Catahoula pit bull dog and the Catahoula bulldog, and the common crossing of them, this fatality was recorded as a pit bull-mix.''}} <br/>
::People screwing-up dog identities is nothing new. The first dog the policeman shot at the scene was thought to be a pit bull. As for the Golden Retriever bites, it was determined "'''at least''' one matched the Retriever" - "''at least one''" tells me there were more - the dog was euthanized. No one knows what happened prior to her death. It is quite possible that the Golden and the Catahoula got into a fight and the woman tried to break them up at her own peril. Automatic reaction would be denial that a Golden could/would attack a person which leaves the "pit bull mix" as the obvious choice to be the killer. Local news reports are not immune from identification errors. Bottomline - we are supposed to exercise good editorial judgment. I see no real benefit to our readers or long lasting encyclopedic value by including that news report in the article. It certainly does not substantiate the Catahoula bulldog as a breed - on the contrary - it further confirms that we're dealing with a unverifiable mixed breed, or "dog type" - in short, a mongrel that probably looks like a Catahoula Leopard Dog. Besides, the incident is already covered in Fatal dog attacks. We don't include rare mauling incidents in our respective dog articles when the dog is identified as a ], ], ], etc., and those breeds have mauled and killed. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 04:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
:::''"Rushing died from multiple dog bites — primarily those of the bulldog, the hief said."''<ref>{{cite news |first=Ben |last=Tinsley |title=Dog in fatal attack to be put to death |date=March 29, 2007 |place=] |newspaper=] |url=http://galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=58d5e9730ffd37a5 |accessdate=August 29, 2019 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120405135532/http://galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=58d5e9730ffd37a5 |archivedate=April 5, 2012 }}</ref> ] (])
{{sources-talk}}

:::::Local interest material citing local newspapers are tolerated in other articles e.g. ].

:::::The ] story goes to show that people in the deep south, if that is a fair characterization, spoke of "Cathahoula bulldog" as a type of dog as far back as 1977 (at least). This is deliberately "Old news".

:::::]'s editing shows a pattern of keeping this page wiped clean of any RS sources added by other editors, and is offering rather flimsy excuses such as "Old news" or "]" to justify her purging. --] (]) 04:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

{{od}}If you are not aware of or perhaps have forgotten our relevant ]s, perhaps ] may prove helpful - discuss content not editors. The AfD was No Consensus not a straight-up keep, so we are focused on trying to resolve the issues by finding RS that will clearly pass GNG, not add more questionable material. See ] for the ongoing discussion about this article, and also read the prior discussions on this TP. There are no independent RS that establish the existence of such a breed beyond anecdotal information. WP should not be used to legitimize it and what appears to be a catch-all name for a mixed breed of ], particularly one that we have not yet confirmed was crossed with the modern UKC recognized (1999) ]. American Pit Bull Terriers were often confused with American Bulldogs , The information you want to add has issues, beginning with verifiable identities of the 3 dogs involved. The 2007 newspaper article was not fact-checked, and contained errors that required correction. There is no verifiable documentation to confirm that the dog was a Catahoula bulldog which is supposed to be a Catahoula Leopard Dog x American Bulldog cross - but we have yet to determine that such a cross is (1) a true breed, and (2) if it was actually the modern American bulldog that Stodghill crossed considering American Pit Bull Terriers were called bulldogs before the UKC recognized the purebred American Bulldog which is different. The incident appears to be another case of mistaken identity considering the dog was initially referred to as a pit bull which raises questions - there are no images or descriptions of the dog to confirm anything beyond what the 19 yo son said. See ], also article, and . ] <sub>]</sub> ] 13:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

== Mixed breed ==

This article is unsourced and needs to be merged into ] because the latter is the only significant breed that can be determined by appearance. The percentage of ] remains undetermined short of DNA testing; therefore, this particular cross fails notability as a purebred that breeds true. We should not allow WP to be used as a marketing tool for the purpose of establishing recognition for an unrecognized dog whose parentage cannot be confirmed by RS. The best we can do is merge it as one of several crosses with Catahoulas that dog breeders have attempted but were unable to secure the needed foundations to consider the cross anything more than mongrel, except for the Catahoula features. One of the many about the Catahoula bulldog states: {{xt| With any mixed-breed, a dog can be a different percentage of each breed; therefore all of the characteristics of both breeds must be taken into consideration. You never know which natural traits a dog will or will not be born with.}} <—- and therein part of the problem lies. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 15:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:36, 24 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catahoula bulldog redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 45 days 
This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconDogs
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs
WikiProject Dogs To-do:

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Dogs:

          Other talk page banners
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Tom Stodghill and the Animal Research Foundation (ARF) dog breed registry

For over six decades in pre-internet days (1940's-mid 2010's), Animal Research Foundation (ARF) was a third-party source registry for upcoming, new, or rare breeds (particularly 'stock dogs') that had not yet been accepted as a breed by AKC or UKC. Its purpose was the establishment of a database of pedigrees for multiple rare dog breeds. (See breed list) Such a collection of pedigrees was an important step toward recognition of a breed by any national kennel club, as it allowed the cooperation of multiple breeders who may not even know of the others and the compilation of hundreds or thousands of pedigrees which was required by such kennel clubs as AKC and UKC. I can't even begin to imagine the size of his bank of filing cabinets!

ARF provided this valuable registration service for decades before the 1991 creation of the American Rare Breed Association and the 1995 establishment of AKC's Foundation Stock Service Program (which requires 40 years of breed history before you can even apply for FSS status ).

Do not think for one minute that such a valuable service would be provided without fees; every single breed club charges fees for pedigree registration by their participating breeders, and going through AKC's FSS program for breed recognition is very pricey. That doesn't make the ARF service a "pay for play" (a derogatory term coined for ARF on Misplaced Pages Talk pages to argue about citations from ARF websites, of which I found two in the Wayback Machine, arfusa.com and stodghillsarfregistry.com). Don't paint the ARF as a "vanity registration" like so many of the internet fly-by-night services are today, where any dog owner can receive a pretty predigree certificate for their dog of any breed or mix of breeds, like a vanity press book. ARF only registered dog breeds not yet accepted by the AKC or UKC, including the foundation of registry of the American Bulldog before it was officially recognized by the United Kennel Club in 1999. Add to that the early registry for the English Shepherd, Catahoula Leopard, Australian Cattledog Queensland Heeler, Texas Heeler, English Bulldogge, Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog and Australian Shepherd. ARF did NOT pass out registration certificates to any and all dogs just by paying a fee. Breeders had to be certified to enter their dogs, and for each dog they had to provide a full pedigree and front and side photos of their dogs. You could pay ARF to get a copy of your dog's registration, but you couldn't pay ARF to register your dog unless you were the breeder and you were a certified breeder with ARF. Such restrictions were no different than the current AKC FSS program or any other breed club or major or national kennel club and registry.

Operated by Tom Stodghill, an importer and breeder of dogs who was interested in genetics, Stodghill had more bona fides, business goodwill, and experience in dog breeding than you could shake a stick at — probably more than all the combined experience of us paper-pushers on Misplaced Pages today. The fact that ARF is no longer in business is NOT a reflection of the good works they performed and the reliable source nature of citations to their old websites as found in the Wayback Machine. Historical revisionism has no legitimate place in Misplaced Pages.

— Nomopbs (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Too much off-topic-for-Misplaced Pages stuff in this to address it all directly. But some quick points: "rare breed" that is "not yet accepted" by any major registry as being promoted by some minor organization = non-notable. WP doesn't cover backyard-breeder stuff. To the extent that some "experimental" breeds get just enough coverage that they should be mentioned somewhere, we need List of experimental dog breeds to go along with List of experimental cat breeds; the cat one has successfully been used as a merge target for iffy articles that would likely not survive AfD, but about subjects that are just verifiable enough that they're probably worth mentioning in a list, in summary form with some basic details.

It may or may not be that ARF itself is notable and should have an article; whether it is and should will be determined by coverage of ARF in multiple, reliable, independent sources (see WP:GNG).

Whether ARF materials are reliable sources is going to depend on the topic and the source and what exactly the source is being cited for. It is not evidence that some small population of dogs constitute a breed, in any sense that WP or any other encyclopedia would care about, since ARF's explicit purpose was providing pedigree registrations for dogs that were not yet recognized by any major organization as a breed. An ARF citation does not help establish notability, because the organization was not independent of the subject matter (its entire bread-and-butter and its raison d'etre was cataloguing and promoting alleged breeds no one else accepted).

But ARF might well be a great source for characteristics of a particular experimental and now-defunct breed, in absence of a better one, and for dates like when breed establishment efforts first began. ARF not being entirely non-profit doesn't make them an unreliable source; most publishers are for-profit, and other organizations involved in dog breeding charge fees for various things. What makes AKC a more generally reliable source is reputation; the real world treats them and various similar national and international organizations as authoritative on dog breeds, but largely doesn't even known ARF existed or that ARBA does (and ARBA is arguably much more sketchy than ARF was).

All this ranting on various pages about pit bulls and their definition and kill rates at dog-catcher agencies, and yadda-yadda, really has nothing to do with any of this (or whether to keep/delete/merge a redundant Cahoula dog article, etc.). Anyone whose username almost certainly resolves to "NoMoPBs" probably has no business writing anything about pit bulls pro or con on Misplaced Pages, especially when they seem to have little intent to do anything at the project other than "lobby" about pit bulls. See WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:ACTIVISM, WP:GREATWRONGS, etc. Someone on a tear like this about another breed got topic-banned just a few months ago. Let's not go there.
— AReaderOutThataway /c 00:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@AReaderOutThataway: I'm sorry you misunderstood the purpose of my posting about ARF here. One editor had just removed all (Wayback Machine) citations pointing to the ARF website. The citations were used to support descriptions of this dog breed, like its appearance. The article was then left with one remaining citation. Then the chopping editor snarked incredulously at another editor for having an opinion on the AfD about the notability of the breed based on "an article with no citations". Then they came here to participate in the "pay for play" slander. I couldn't stand for it any more so I wrote the essay.
The topic of Catahoula bulldog was just one of several on the chopping block. After I noticed several breeds had already been chopped out of the Bulldog breeds article, including Catahoula bulldog, Boxer, Bulldogge Brasileiro, Ca de Bou, Alano Español, and probably a few others I don't recall, the following articles were placed on the AfD chopping block: Bulldog breeds, Catahoula bulldog, and Alano Español. I was trying to save the information from complete annihilation. The reasons given for AfD was spurious at best and the suggested plan was complete removal of all content related to such "unrecognized breeds" including all articles and all mention within other articles. There was no constructive suggestion (similar to yours) to place the content off in some corner of Misplaced Pages, not even a suggestion of Merge was made. Instead, the breeds had been targetted for complete censorship, including removal of mention from within other articles, such as the recent hatchet job that had been done in the Bulldog breeds article prior to the three AfD nominations. I just spent the last week trying to restore and/or upgrade the articles and keep the content from being lost to arbitrary-reason censorship. There is no disagreement about what is a "kennel club recognized breed". However, I absolutely believe that breeds (or types or rare breeds or whatever you want to label them) should not be ERASED from Misplaced Pages.
So if you think there is activism going on, perhaps you should be looking for who is putting in the effort for causing radical changes, loss of content, and censorship. Then look to see who is trying to practice stewardship of the information.
BTW, I was just about to click "Thanks" for your well-written and expressed opinion under my ARF essay until I got to the last paragraph. Completely shocking and so off-the-mark. I think you have me confused with someone else. Please re-research and retract.
— Nomopbs (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I see you've changed your user name. If your intention for doing so is aimed at improving interactions with other members of Project Dog, I highly recommend a change in attitude as well. The aspersions you've been casting against others - as what you've done here - is not helpful, and neither are your attempts to include unverifiable material cited to unreliable sources to the extent of making a WP:POINT. Talk 📧 21:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Just can't keep your discussions about CONTENT, can you? WP:HARASSMENT — Normal Op (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Interestingly, the other party that got topic-banned earlier this year for dog-related ranting and advocacy also claimed that pretty much any criticism of their behavior on WP was "harassment". Becoming more and more strident will not convince anyone you are right, only that you're not a constructive presence (see WP:COI, WP:CIR, WP:SATISFY, WP:NOTHERE, WP:HIGHMAINT, etc.).

Most of the pages mentioned above with "chopping block" hyperbole are obvious candidates for WP:SUMMARY-style merger. They're either non-notable experimental breeds, marketing names for crossbreeds (AKA mutts, mongrels), one organization's alternative name for something we already have an article about under another name, or simply a redundant page (if we have Bulldog and List of dog breeds, then Bulldog breeds serves no purpose at all. It's actually worse than useless due to ambiguity. Bulldog is a breed, and you want to treat it like a breed group. The mistake here is in assuming that anything with ulldog in its name can simply be call "a bulldog" or "a bulldog breed" in an encyclopedic, non-confusing, non-confused manner. It can't. It's like saying that September 11 attacks and Heart attack should both be covered in a "Attacks" article because they have the same word in their names. That kind of reasoning failure is a linguistic fallacy (specifically a mixture of etymological fallacy, equivocation, false analogy, and false equivalence). A similar example would be all the naturally bobtailed cat breeds, most of which have "bobtail" or "bob" in their names, but which are not closely related (they are separate mutations, other that the Japanese Bobtail and Kurilian Bobtail sharing the same gene; the Karelian Bobtail, Pixie-Bob, Manx, and others all have different mutations from those two and from each other, and they do not form a breed group, nor a good subject for a list article on WP, for essentially the same reason that we don't have lists of blonde actors or shoe brands with hexagonal tread marks).

Finally, please see WP:AADD, when it comes to arguments along the lines of "I'm saving information" and "don't delete my topic". These are not a valid arguments here. We absolutely should, and do, delete information and entire topics when they do not make the encyclopedic cut (WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE for details, and WP:Notability for entire topics).
— AReaderOutThataway /c 23:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Old news

I removed the recently added section titled “In the news” as the cited sources were to a 1977 report in a local newspaper (behind a paywall), and the other was a 2007 report involving 2 different named breeds of dogs that killed a woman in Friendswood, TX for the following reasons:

  1. neither are considered “news” as both were published over a decade ago
  2. one is behind a paywall and while not prohibited, non-paywall sources are preferred
  3. the 2007 report initially misrepresented the attack as a “pit bull” attack until the victims son called one of the dogs a Catahoula bulldog, a type of dog which remains unverifiable so we must be careful how it is worded. The other dogs at the scene of the fatal attack were identified as a Golden Retriever and a 3rd, an Australian Shepherd. No one witnessed the attack or what might have provoked it. The 2007 incident is already listed in Fatal dog attacks.

There is still work to do in an effort to verify such a breed of dog exists, or if use of the name “Catahoula bulldog” is another misused name as is “pit bull”. I’m of the mind that RS will substantiate the latter. Talk 📧 13:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Old news is still news and is acceptable in Misplaced Pages per WP:RS policy

  • Though an editor is welcome to find a non-paywall source to replace a citation made by another editor, there is no Misplaced Pages policy to support removing another editor's citation and related text on the basis that "it was behind a paywall". Citation that was used= (pinging Kiyoweap, the original editor)
  • The Houston Chronicle news article which was cited was followed by further reports delineating which dog was responsible. After autopsy there was no question which of the three dogs was the primary cause of death (the Catahoula Bulldog), which was the secondary (Golden Retriever), and which was not involved (Australian Shepherd).
    • To wit, "Galveston County Medical Examiners found bite marks matching those of bulldog, and at least one matching the retriever." and, "Rushing died from multiple dog bites — primarily those of the bulldog, the hief said."
    • I have seen no reports mentioning the dog as a pit bull or pit bull cross.
    • The fatality event is recorded in Misplaced Pages on the page List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2000s)#Fatalities_in_2007, scroll down to date March 16.
  • Reproducing here the paragraph/note from the removed citation=: which says "Because there was no standardization at the time of slavery, there were no discrete breed names. Today, many hunters claim a variety of dogs to be ideal catch dogs, such as the Catahoula Bulldog, Cane Corso, and Dogo Argentino, the latter two recently being crossbred with fighting pit bull kinds so as to increase their size. Most of the literature on hog and cattle catch dogs circulates informally through the Internet or vanity presses. See, for instance, Kelley (2009) and Adele (2012). Note that these catch dogs are different from those used in sheepherding." (Reproduced here because google books is notoriously random about whether or not it will show you the page you requested; as in my case it would not display page 142 until I futzed with it.)

Normal Op (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources

  1. "'Old Yeller' To The Rescue". Prattville Progress. August 11, 1977. p. 11.
  2. Wise, Lindsay (March 19, 2007). "Ruling: Friendswood woman died of dog attack". Houston Chronicle. Catahoula Bulldog.. is a cross between an American Bulldog and a Catahoula Leopard Dog
  3. Gutierrez Henson, Liz (April 3, 2007). "Second dog in fatal maulling is destroyed". Retrieved August 29, 2019.
  4. Tinsley, Ben (March 29, 2007). "Dog in fatal attack to be put to death". The Galveston County Daily News. Galveston, Texas. Archived from the original on April 5, 2012. Retrieved August 29, 2019. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. Nast, Heidi J. (2015). Gillespie, Kathryn; Collard, Rosemary-Claire (eds.). Pit bulls, slavery, and whiteness in the mid- to late-nineteenth century U. S.: geographical trajectories: primary sources. Routledge. p. 142, n5. ISBN 1-317-64927-3. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Trying to establish notability for an unrecognized breed based purely on anecdotal evidence is ludicrous at best. Misidentifying dogs is a widespread problem as I've pointed out in other discussions, and cited the information to high quality RS. As for media misidentifying the dog as a pit bull mix see the following:
  • CHAPTER 3: Responses to the Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters - USDOJ-COPS

Similarly, the agency should not attempt to identify the dog by breed. Breed identification of dogs of unknown pedigree is extremely unreliable and, in many cases, later investigation will require a retraction.14 For example, in March 2007 in Friendswood, Texas, police originally reported that a dog believed to have killed a woman was a "pit bull." Subsequent to this report, a family member informed the authorities that the dog was a mix between an American bulldog and a Catahoula. A correction was then published.

  • Dallas Morning News - opinion piece by Tod Robberson in 2008, a year later: Pamela Rushing - 50 yrs old - Friendswood, TX - March 16, 2007 - Death by family pit bull-mix
  • DogsBite.org - see the note following their report: NOTE: Due to the closeness in nature of the Catahoula pit bull dog and the Catahoula bulldog, and the common crossing of them, this fatality was recorded as a pit bull-mix.
People screwing-up dog identities is nothing new. The first dog the policeman shot at the scene was thought to be a pit bull. As for the Golden Retriever bites, it was determined "at least one matched the Retriever" - "at least one" tells me there were more - the dog was euthanized. No one knows what happened prior to her death. It is quite possible that the Golden and the Catahoula got into a fight and the woman tried to break them up at her own peril. Automatic reaction would be denial that a Golden could/would attack a person which leaves the "pit bull mix" as the obvious choice to be the killer. Local news reports are not immune from identification errors. Bottomline - we are supposed to exercise good editorial judgment. I see no real benefit to our readers or long lasting encyclopedic value by including that news report in the article. It certainly does not substantiate the Catahoula bulldog as a breed - on the contrary - it further confirms that we're dealing with a unverifiable mixed breed, or "dog type" - in short, a mongrel that probably looks like a Catahoula Leopard Dog. Besides, the incident is already covered in Fatal dog attacks. We don't include rare mauling incidents in our respective dog articles when the dog is identified as a Golden Retriever, Irish Setter, Boston Terrier, etc., and those breeds have mauled and killed. Talk 📧 04:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
"Rushing died from multiple dog bites — primarily those of the bulldog, the hief said." Normal Op (talk)
Sources

  1. Tinsley, Ben (March 29, 2007). "Dog in fatal attack to be put to death". The Galveston County Daily News. Galveston, Texas. Archived from the original on April 5, 2012. Retrieved August 29, 2019. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
Local interest material citing local newspapers are tolerated in other articles e.g. Groundhog Day.
The Prattville, Alabama story goes to show that people in the deep south, if that is a fair characterization, spoke of "Cathahoula bulldog" as a type of dog as far back as 1977 (at least). This is deliberately "Old news".
Atsme's editing shows a pattern of keeping this page wiped clean of any RS sources added by other editors, and is offering rather flimsy excuses such as "Old news" or "WP:PAYWALL" to justify her purging. --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

If you are not aware of or perhaps have forgotten our relevant WP:PAGs, perhaps WP:NPA may prove helpful - discuss content not editors. The AfD was No Consensus not a straight-up keep, so we are focused on trying to resolve the issues by finding RS that will clearly pass GNG, not add more questionable material. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dogs#DRV for the ongoing discussion about this article, and also read the prior discussions on this TP. There are no independent RS that establish the existence of such a breed beyond anecdotal information. WP should not be used to legitimize it and what appears to be a catch-all name for a mixed breed of Catahoula Leopard Dog, particularly one that we have not yet confirmed was crossed with the modern UKC recognized (1999) American Bulldog. American Pit Bull Terriers were often confused with American Bulldogs , The information you want to add has issues, beginning with verifiable identities of the 3 dogs involved. The 2007 newspaper article was not fact-checked, and contained errors that required correction. There is no verifiable documentation to confirm that the dog was a Catahoula bulldog which is supposed to be a Catahoula Leopard Dog x American Bulldog cross - but we have yet to determine that such a cross is (1) a true breed, and (2) if it was actually the modern American bulldog that Stodghill crossed considering American Pit Bull Terriers were called bulldogs before the UKC recognized the purebred American Bulldog which is different. The incident appears to be another case of mistaken identity considering the dog was initially referred to as a pit bull which raises questions - there are no images or descriptions of the dog to confirm anything beyond what the 19 yo son said. See WP:EXCEPTIONAL, also this ASPCA article, and Today. Talk 📧 13:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Mixed breed

This article is unsourced and needs to be merged into Catahoula Leopard Dog because the latter is the only significant breed that can be determined by appearance. The percentage of American Bulldog remains undetermined short of DNA testing; therefore, this particular cross fails notability as a purebred that breeds true. We should not allow WP to be used as a marketing tool for the purpose of establishing recognition for an unrecognized dog whose parentage cannot be confirmed by RS. The best we can do is merge it as one of several crosses with Catahoulas that dog breeders have attempted but were unable to secure the needed foundations to consider the cross anything more than mongrel, except for the Catahoula features. One of the many questionable sources about the Catahoula bulldog states: With any mixed-breed, a dog can be a different percentage of each breed; therefore all of the characteristics of both breeds must be taken into consideration. You never know which natural traits a dog will or will not be born with. <—- and therein part of the problem lies. Talk 📧 15:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Categories: