Talk:Catahoula bulldog

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

— Nomopbs (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC) —&thinsp;AReaderOutThataway&thinsp;t/c 00:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Too much off-topic-for-Wikipedia stuff in this to address it 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,  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 "NoMo[re]P[it]B[ull]s" probably has no business writing anything about pit bulls pro or con on Wikipedia, especially when they seem to have little intent to do anything at the project other than "lobby" about pit bulls. See WP:NOT, 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.


 * 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia.


 * 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.

—&thinsp;AReaderOutThataway&thinsp;t/c 23:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. Atsme 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 [b|B]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  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 for details, and WP:Notability for entire topics).

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: 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. Atsme Talk 📧 13:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.

Old news is still news and is acceptable in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, 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 [Friendswood Police C]hief said."
 * I have seen no reports mentioning the dog as a pit bull or pit bull cross.
 * The fatality event is recorded in Wikipedia on the page List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2000s), 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)


 * 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
 * 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. Atsme  Talk 📧 04:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Rushing died from multiple dog bites — primarily those of the bulldog, the [Friendswood Police C]hief said." Normal Op (talk)
 * "Rushing died from multiple dog bites — primarily those of the bulldog, the [Friendswood Police C]hief said." Normal Op (talk)


 * 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 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. Atsme 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. Atsme Talk 📧 15:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)