Talk:Bull and terrier

Small Text

The Bull and Terrier

One should not deny or try to ignore or reject bull and terrier crosses whom are hunting dogs. Just about every working/hunting terrier you see today has bull-dog blood in them and the history and use of bull and terriers as hunting dogs should stop getting deleted from this article in my opinion. I am aware that this fact contradicts the direction and limited tone on this article as it is today, but maybe we can correct the tone so that it includes hunting bull and terriers too, rather than just trying to delete the fact that most hunting terriers are also bull and terrier crosses. Maybe we can work together to make a very good article.

If we cannot work together, or if some people just don't want to include the hunting bull and terrier crosses, then I will leave this article alone.Working terriers (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The English White Terrier was created in the 1850s at its earliest, and was first shown in 1864. The English White Terrier was used in the creation of the White "Bull Terrier", however, the English White Terrier was not bred to the Old English Bulldog but rather to Bull and Terrier's in-order to help create the White "Bull Terrier". The Manchester Terrier itself is a relatively new breed that had been developed for the show ring in the middle to late 1800s. The Manchester Terrier is as different, if not more so, from the terriers of the 1700s and early 1800s as the modern English Bulldog differs from the Old English Bulldog. The list of terriers bred to the Old English Bulldog in-order to create Bull and Terrier crosses is perhaps endless, and so I have written that the Old English Bulldog was bred to a variety of terriers so that the article can include all of the crosses done between the Old English Bulldog and the Terrier.Working terriers (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd

The description of the Bull Terrier states that they are all "pure white" yet the page links to a photo of what is presumably a Bull Terrier and is not, in fact, white. Something's screwy here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.17.31 (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture

The picture in the description is a rather odd choice. There are several dogs in the picture, and I cannot tell which one is supposed to be a Bull and Terrier. Is there not a single picture of this breed, or painting containing a single dog?

The Pit Bull(APBT) was the progenitor of the Amstaff

The Pit Bull(APBT) was the progenitor of the Amstaff. The Bull and Terrier isn't the direct ancestor of the amstaff.191.35.65.100 (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Website bulldoginformation.com probably not RS

The article has two citations using the website bulldoginformation.com. Please note that this is a self published monetized website by a single person who states no expertise in the area beyond (a) being a webmaster and (b) having "a passion for bulldogs". [1] It is probably not a reliable source per Wikipedia Verifiability and RS guidelines. Nomopbs (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Sources for the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Sources for the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Dieter Fleig

Atsme, I have asked you four times now, please can you confirm exactly what Dieter Fleig says and provide page numbers? Cavalryman (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The page # is in the citation with the date (1996:86), where it has been since you first asked me. BTW, SMcCandlish is an excellent citer cleaner-upper if my citations need work. BTW - another editor cited that book before me which is how I came across it - I didn't check to see which editor it was. I managed to find the material online and grabbed the page number for you - it may have been Amazon or another website, I can't remember. Their program won't let you keep going back to a book you already looked at - they want you purchase it. Do you have a copy of the book? If not, I can ask Megalibrarygirl to help us find one or maybe TWL can get us access. Later - it's 11:30 pm here, (and, what, around 4:10pm your time?) so you're just get started and I'm done for the day. Atsme 💬 📧 05:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

So confirm the page number is 86? The the middle of the chapter about the modern Bulldog? If you cannot verify the text how are you citing the book? Cavalryman (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Your demands are making me weary. How many more times do I have to repeat myself? Is Fleig even cited in this article? If you can't read the source in context, cite another source that you like better. While I'd be happy to discuss the pros and cons of sourcing/citations with you at a WikiCon or WikiMania, I really don't have time to do it here. I've done my part, so if you want more, go to the library and look it up - or buy the book. It is always better to read citations in context anyway. Oh, and it is not our job as volunteers to hand-hold our readers - we are not librarians. Atsme 💬 📧 20:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Continuing from where we were on the fringe theories noticeboard.

Over at "fringe theories", I said that understanding the distinction between the concept of a dog type and a dog breed is crucial to resolving the debate over whether "Bull and Terrier" was a previous name for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman responded the sources detailed above all say it was a breed. Yes there is likely less deviation of appearance seen within breeds in the western world today than yesteryear, but that does not make them any less of a breed (the advent of breed standards has encouraged greater uniformity). Breeds seen in the developing world typically show greater variation in appearance as function (as opposed to form) is typically (but not always) what is sought from a mating.

I see a problem with the term "breed" having two meanings. The more general, looser meaning that Cavalryman is using and the more specific meaning Atsme favors here, i.e. short for "standard breed". The article says "no single, scientifically accepted definition of the term exists. It was shown by set-theoretic means that for the term breed an infinite number of different definitions, which more or less meet the common requirements found in literature, can be given. A breed is therefore not an objective or biologically verifiable classification but is instead a term of art amongst groups of breeders who share a consensus around what qualities make some members of a given species members of a nameable subset." The Staffordshire Bull Terrier lede says its "a shorthaired, purebred dog breed". I take that to mean it complies with a breed standard.

I'm not clear on what the distinction is between dog types and the looser meanings of "breed". Seems like a grey matter, with a spectrum ranging from very broad types bred for certain characteristics (big dog, small dog; long-legged dog, short-legged dog) and the extreme purebred dogs (big but with short legs and a dozen other specific qualities). I suppose the ideal purebred dog would be a clone – that would 100% replicate the standard, LOL!

Was there once a Bull and Terrier breed standard, which at some point the organization responsible for the standard decided to rename to Staffordshire Bull Terrier? If such a thing happened, surely someone can find a news report announcing this renaming, or a press release at the least? I don't think there ever was such an official renaming.

The Ngram shows that the name "bull and terrier" goes back to circa 1820, while "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" only appeared after 1930. Sources between 1800–1875 use the term in a more general sense, and don't call this a purebred, rather it's "the mixture of the bull and terrier". The earliest mention of Staffordshire I found is in this 1908 book: The term 'Staffordshire bull terrier' is frequently used by 'doggy' men, owing, it is believed, to the notion that the bull terrier first of all sprang into existence in that district..." – wbm1058 (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a response to the entire multi-page, multi-thread debate, not just the post above. "Breeds" that existed before breeder organisations and breed standards are/were, pretty much by definition, landraces. A "mixture" of bull[y] and terrier (which are dog types/groups not breeds) doesn't produce a breed and maybe not even a landrace, but a cross-bred type, which might even be fairly consistent, like labradoodles, etc. We generally don't need articles on these things (there's a nearly unlimited number of possible cross-breed combinations), just those that are covered by significant, in-depth (not passing-mention) coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources (which rules out most breeder and breeder-organization material).

The term "bull and terrier" pre-dates the establishment of the first formal dog-breeder association (the Kennel Club, in the UK). Some sources call this a breed, but they are using that word in the broadest possible sense, and that is not the sense that Wikipedia uses. WP distinguishes between breeds, landraces, cross-breeds, hybrids, feral mongrel populations, wild subspecies, etc., but there are dog books that call them all "breeds" (mainly as an excuse to claim to be the most "complete" dog breed encyclopedia as of the time of publication).

Those kinds of books, BTW, are tertiary sources, not secondary, anyway, so they do not help establish notability, and should be used with caution. Breeder organisation materials are primary. Breed profiles written by breeders and published in magazines and sites (Dog Fancy, etc.) are primary – they lack independence from the subject – even if some other material in the publications is secondary. (And many such articles are just really bad, full of historical inaccuracies, aggrandizing claims, etc.)

I don't know why this particular term has been argued about for so long, but we seem to have a lot of sourcing that indicates that the term "bull and terrier" was used for cross-bred fighting dogs of a particular era and region, which were ancestral to several standardised modern breeds, and that the term was most especially used for the variety that eventually became standardised as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. This doesn't seem difficult to write about, nor does it sound like we need a stand-alone article on it, but if we're going to have one it's not hard to write it sensibly, and to refer to it sensibly in other articles like Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

I'm detecting a whiff of the "If evolution is real, why do monkeys still exist?" fallacy at play in this multi-thread debate. The fact (as best we can determine it) that bull-and-terrier dogs of a certain consistency became standardised as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, when long-term bred with each other for fixed traits instead of being further cross-bred, has no bearing on the question of whether other bull-and-terrier bloodlines exist[ed] and gave rise, in whole or in part, to other breeds.

Back to the internal question of whether we need a separate article about bull-and-terrier dogs: I'll repeat what I said at the other page: we have that article because someone a long time ago got it into their head that pretty much every term ever found in a dog book should have a WP article about it, and we've been playing cleanup for a long time, merging away redundant and non-notable pages. To me, it would make more sense to have an article on bully-type dogs, and another on terrier-type dogs, and then simply refer as needed to cross-breeding between them without having an an article devoted to cross-breeding between them, which isn't magically more special than cross-breeding between other types of dogs.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Mac, I agree with most of what you said above, except for the Staffordshire portion. There is no scientific evidence, or even verifiable anecdotal evidence that supports such a claim beyond book authors attempting to sell books or push their own opinions - none of which is based on science or verifiable evidence. It reminds me of trying to prove a false positive or negative, if that's a correct analogy.^{04:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)} What we do have is scientific evidence that supports what I've said in that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not "the" renamed bull and terrier. My sources of information come from the primary breed registries where the history and stud book records are kept, multiple experts, some of whom are book authors, DNA evidence, and what I found most recently in The Veterinary Journal which also applies to bull and terrier crosses as those crosses created the pit bull types: ‘Pit bull’ is not a recognized breed, but a term applied to a heterogeneous group whose membership may include purebred dogs of various breeds, along with dogs presumed to be mixes of those breeds. And it is verifiably factually accurate. You might also read what I've added to the lead about the genetics of these crosses, and in the Terminology section. It's a work in progress. What we don't want to do is perpetuate false information, and claiming the Stafford IS the bull and terrier is false information. It has some ancestral links but it is not the bull and terrier of the mid-1800s. It is ludicrous to assume all bulldog and terrier crosses became the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which would make that modern breed the ancestral sire of all the other dogs that descended from the bull and terrier hybrids, and that is too far-fetched to even discuss. It's time to put this argument to bed. Atsme 💬 📧 18:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not think it is accurate to describe these dogs as a type. A type is broad categorisation of dogs who are genetically and historically related but who have through distance, breeder's preferences, regional sensitivities or some other factor subdivided into various varieties/landraces/breeds and who are typically not mated to one another once divided. Take livestock guardian dogs for example, they have existed for centuries right across the Eurasia from Korea to Spain (and parts of North Africa), basically wherever wolves exist and people keep sheep or goats. They have subsequently been divided into a number of breeds, see Template:Livestock guardians for those breeds we have articles about on enwiki. As already said those breeds have diverged for a number of reasons, sometimes simply local preferences. For example in the Himalayas they like black and tan LGDs (Tibetan Mastiff/Himalayan Sheepdog), in the Pyrenees they like white LGDs (Pyrenean Mountain Dog/Pyrenean Mastiff). I have deliberately linked to those four breeds also because they were previously two breeds and due to national sensitivities have been further divided along national boundaries, so they are now breeds "closed" from one another that are not typically interbred.

There is no evidence that Bull and Terriers were ever so divided in their country of origin, yes we have Bull-type terriers that accounts for a number of breeds that have descended from these early dogs, either through deliberate outcrosses with other breeds (the Bull Terrier) or different preferences in another country (American Pit Bull Terrier/American Staffordshire Terrier). If we are going to say no breed existed before the advent of breed standards then we are saying no breed existed before 1873, I do not think that is accurate. But, if we would prefer to use another term (such as variety) then that would be preferable, because I do not think "type" is correct nor do I do I believe it is backed up by sources.

I am not sure the analogy with the Labradoodles is accurate either, designer crossbreds are typically F1 or F2 crosses (as in the crosses from base breeds that are repeatedly replicated and the progeny of those crosses are not continuously bred with one another for multiple generations). Yes initially the Bull and Terrier was created from a a number of crosses of two varieties of dog, but they were subsequently bred with each other for generations. This is pretty much how all new breeds are created, Golden Retriever#History outlines a very well documented example of a breed's genesis.

A possible compromise here may be to merge bull and terrier with bull-type terrier. This would allow us to include a well documented history section with offramps for the Bull Terrier in the 1860s, the American breeds in the 1870s and the Staffie in the 1930s. But I do think the Staffie article needs to acknowledge that a number of authorities and kennel clubs believe the Staffie is the original Bull and Terrier rebadged.

Apologies if I have not addressed all points above, I am getting pumped at work today. Also Atsme, could you please address my questions in the above section? Cavalryman (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC).

You're not disputing my POV - you're arguing with DNA evidence, scientific data, and scholarly research. I'm not going to participate in this discussion because your view is based on anecdotal evidence. If you can demonstrate otherwise, my eyes and mind are wide open. Atsme 💬 📧 22:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Without wading deep into what is looking more and more like an inter-personal dispute: "A possible compromise here may be to merge bull and terrier with bull-type terrier." That sounds reasonable, and I didn't even realize they were separate pages. "Anecdotal evidence": It's not our anecdotal evidence. The fact that various KCs and other breeder groups "believe the Staffie is the original Bull and Terrier rebadged", and other sources provide some evidence against this view, is encyclopedically significant in and of itself. I've tried to address faintly similar stuff at Turkish Van, Turkish Angora, and Van cat; various breeder groups have created a sort of "mythology" around the two breeds and the landrace that isn't borne out by serious research but which can still be frequently encountered in breeder-authored breed profiles, including those published by major cat fancier organisations and publications. The fact that they make possibly untenable claims (and what facts and other sources make those claims questionable) can be noted without WP endorsing the claims.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Mac, I question the context of some of those claims as they are not fact-based. Similar statements have been made about the 5 other distinct breeds that are descendants of the bull and terrier hybrids. See Canadian Kennel Club description of Bull Terrier and SBT, and The UKC description of Bull Terrier, and SBT. I am not convinced that we should delete or merge this article. It has great historic significance that belongs in this encyclopedia. I have already included all substantial views in the SBT article, and I'm still researching. The following is also relevant: (my bold +underline) - citing The Great Book of Bulldogs, Bull Terrier and Molosser – Part 1 – Bulldogs & Bull Terrier by Walter & Marlene Zwettler, ©2012 ISBN 978-3-8442-3922-5) There are no page #s just section #s.

1. (Sect 19 - Bull & Terrier) James Hinks II (son) confirmed in American Journal Dogdom, that his Dad crossed the following breeds into the Bull Terrier: Greyhound, Whippet and possibly Borzoi blood (to add length to head with a less pronounced stop).
2. Quoting from the book: "These Bull & Terriers have existed for centuries and they are bred anew according to use, and nothing has changed until today. You don't see these working strains on Crufts; it's their duty to keep the vermin short. Look at the following pictures and compare the shape of the head of the Bull Terrier (early imports into the USA) with the pictured working terriers, you would have to be blind not to realize the resemblance."
3. (Sect 22 - Staffordshire Bull Terrier) When bull baiting stopped, dog fighting became popular. Bulldogs were crossed with various terriers for courage, endurance, & agility. "At first, these crossings were called Bull & Terrier, and gradually a new breed developed which became known as 'Bull Terrier'."
4. (Sect 22 - Staffordshire Bull Terrier) "Staffordshire is one of the main origins of the Bull Terrier and it is no doubt due to our forbearers liking of a true game fighting dog, brave and fearless yet of sound disposition towards man, that we have bull terriers today and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier in its various guises has emerged as the most popular breed of terrier of the present time."
5. (Sect 22) In 1935, a group of men drafted a breed standard for how their own particular strains of dogs should be judged at shows - those strains happened to be the "bulldoggy" type in the Cradley Heath district. The Kennel Club recognized the breed as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. "The result has been very far-reaching." It attracted dog show types who weren't that interested in the "gameness of the breed" but more in their value. Atsme 💬 📧 05:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Page issues

Just a few of the most glaring issues that leap out from the recent rewrite:

1. Neutrality - already under discussion at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Article's neutrality.
2. Copyvio - the last sentence of the DNA analysis sub-section is: This coincides perfectly with the historical descriptions that, though they do not clearly identify all breeds involved, report the popularity of dog contests in Ireland and the lack of stud book veracity, hence undocumented crosses, during this era of breed creation (Lee, 1894). This is neither attributed nor cited so is a flagrant copyvio of Parker et a paper.
3. Original research - the infobox contains a number of completely unattributed claims such as the whippet being one of the foundation breeds of this breed.
4. Unreliable sources - a number of the sources cited are clearly unreliable, including:
   1. "Breed History – The Real Pit Bull". Retrieved 2022-02-08.
   2. View from the Mirror on (7 June 2018). "Lord Camelford: Gentleman Thug (Part One)". View from the Mirror. Retrieved 2022-02-08.

I have added {{POV}} to the article as per the linked discussion this article has clearly been rewritten with a certain agenda in mind. Before tagging the article with further issues tags I would like to give the page author a chance to rectify these most glaring issues. Cavalryman (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC).

Responding to "glaring issues":

1. There are no NPOV issues that I can see - neither here, nor at the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article. This is not a good look for you, Cavalryman. Is it possible that you're prejudiced against this and the SBT article because your merge proposal didn't gain consensus? WP:GETOVERIT because we cannot/will not violate policy by saying in WikiVoice that the bull and terrier is the renamed Staffordshire Bull Terrier, if that's what you're calling a NPOV issue. What exactly are you proposing, anyway?
2. I removed the duplicate sentence which was not a copyvio. It was something you could have done just as easily. If you had actually read the article you would have seen the exact same material inside the quotebox above which is properly cited. I got distracted, and forgot to delete the pasted quote after I created the quotebox. My bad - simple fix.
3. OR?? Perhaps, but it was added in April 2019, nearly 3 years ago; see diff. Too bad you didn't catch it back then...you know, before you proposed the merge.
4. It is not up to individual editors to determine what is or isn't a RS - you can certainly question it on this TP but it appears to me that you're here to push a particular POV; thus the NPOV tag on the article. I also have growing concerns that you aren't quite grasping WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Perhaps you should consider signing up for Wikipedia:NPRSCHOOL. I've been teaching there for a while now and have an opening. We need reviewers, which is what you're doing here instead of simply fixing minor issues.
   1. The website is not just some dog enthusiast who writes books. Yes, it's a biased source but that doesn't necessarily make it an unreliable source. We already know that RS about dog topics are in short supply, especially topics that date back centuries, so we do the best we can. There will be times that we might not like the credentials, but IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to consider a source unreliable...CONTEXTMATTERS.
   2. I wasn't the one who originally cited the View from the Mirror website. It appears that it may have been SMcCandlish since he did some clean-up back in 2019. I'm sure he can address your concerns. I added the 2nd citation where the tag was sitting because it points to the "Portrait of Jim Belcher (by Benjamin Marshall), the boxer to who Lord Camelford gifted his dog ‘Trusty’- who can be seen in the background (image: Tate Gallery)". That cited source actually provides other citations for verifiability along with the images which may explain why Mac kept it. If you can find the image in a better source, or perhaps on Commons, have at it. I'm still busy tightening up Staffordshire Bull Terrier. BTW, this isn't a GA or FA review, or a requested peer review. It's a work in progress so for the easy stuff, WP:JUSTFIXIT. Atsme 💬 📧 16:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

      Wasn't my citation, either. I moved material around to make for better article flow, and that cite and what it was cited for was part of what I moved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I get it - that's how some of mine happened. Atsme 💬 📧 01:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't extinction require having once been not extinct?

According to the article, "The bull and terrier was never a bona fide breed" It's also listed as extinct, with the reason being that it's not recognised by breeders and kennel clubs.

Clearly, a bulldog and a terrier, despite each being pedigreed, can mate and have puppies (assuming they aren't neutered/same-sex/too old/deformed/some other reason they can't besides speciation), to this very day.

So, if that could always happen and it can happen now, and if they aren't recognised by breeders and kennel clubs as a distinct breed, but also never were recognised by breeders and kennel clubs as a distinct breed, then how can they be "extinct"?

It's sort of like saying griffons and elves are extinct, since griffons and elves were never not-extinct. It's absurd to say. But it's also a bit like saying mules are extinct because they aren't a genuine equine species.

At the very least, if this is some other meaning of "extinct" with which this author is unfamiliar, the link in the term should not go back to the standard definition.2601:1C2:5000:1472:901E:6603:60F:DC1D (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

There was a long and detailed disagreement wherein a consensus was finally reached that a non-existent breed or mixed breed dog type cannot be extinct, just that the function certain mixed breed dogs once served became illegal. Modern breeders established kennel clubs, conformation dog shows and breed registries were founded. I think the crux of the confusion was over 1800s dog-types, and the methods of naming those types of mixed breeds (of unknown origins) were typically based on the dog's function; thus bulldog and terrier. The references are now removed. Atsme 💬 📧 21:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)