Talk:Olde English Bulldogge/Archive 1

Wrong category
This breed of dog is not a Category:Dog fighting breed, it was never used for that. The balance of the article is well written, why such heavy editing ? If you want to add on more info that is good, but why move info around for no apparent reason ? WritersCramp 23:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Because the headings and organization don't match the standards for dog breeds; there are better titles than those there. Because the intro has a lot of stuff in it that's not intro. Because there are better ways to phrase, spell, and punctuate what was there. That's why. Wikipedia is about collaborative editing to make text better, not about preserving your exact original text; hence, I'm reverting. If you really think that it's not better written, better organized, and better conforming to the general approach outlined in the WikiProject dog breeds, I recommend that you raise the discussion before reverting again. Learn to work with a group.


 * As for the guy, I didn't remove the mention but I find it's hard to believe that he's significant enough to ever warrant his own article; you can create the article and I'll reserve judgement to when I actually see it.


 * As for the dog fighting breeds, if it doesn't belong in that category, there's most certainly no reason for fighting breeds to be listed prominently in the See also. Can you justify that?


 * Elf | Talk 00:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And now that I'm not so annoyed about having my text reverted *before* you asked why I did it--of course you can edit from there. That's a much better way of developing an article than reverting. Elf | Talk 21:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Citing sources
References vs Books vs Further reading: see my question & answer and links to related discussions at Wikipedia talk:Cite sources. There's no precedence for "Books", and it's still in debate over whether references & further reading should be separate or the same, but I'll go for further reading.

Also, something to consider: WP does not have a standard style for the list of cited sources. However, there's a nice example here and I've been trying to get all the dog-related articles to use that same format so that they look consistent. If you want to use that format, I'd be delighted; if you dont' have strong feelings about it, I can go ahead and change the format. If you do have strong feelings about it--please say something now or forever hold your bulldogges. Elf | Talk 21:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The format I used at University was similiar to MLA, Wiki is using APA, I am easy going on the matter. WritersCramp

Englishe?
A change from "Olde Englishe Bulldogge" to "Olde English Bulldogge" has been reverted not too long ago. I wonder why. All the external links we provide use "English" (including the "International Olde English [sic] Bulldogge Association"), and Google counts 100 instances of "Olde English Bulldogge" for every instance of "Olde Englishe Bulldogge". I'm changing it back to English. Of course the article should be moved as well. Algae 19:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary breed or older breed?
The main bulldog article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_Bulldog) says that this breed (the Olde English Bulldogge) is a contemporary attempt to recreate English Bulldogs from earlier times. This article says that "(t)he Olde English Bulldogge originated in England between 1600 and 1700".

Clarification of facts that differ between the two articles please?


 * The above is an unsigned edit from User:82.133.79.7 (09:09, December 25, 2006).

The Olde English Bulldogge is an effort to recreate the ancient English Bulldog. The ancient English Bulldog, now extinct, is also called the Old English Bulldog. My two cents would be that the main bulldog article on Wikipedia is the one called Bulldog.

The current version of the sentence in the Olde English Bulldogge that I believe you are referring to is

The Olde English Bulldogge is a modern attempt to breed a dog similar to the bulldogs that existed in England between 1600 and 1700, the latter commonly referred to today as the Old English Bulldog which is an extinct breed of dog.

This statement reflects how I understand this part of the history and lineages of the various kinds of bulldogs.

Hope that helps; if not, please ask. Keesiewonder 14:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Would like to validate this page
To those concerned. I would like to help validate this page but my knowledge on how to use Wikipedia is VERY limited. I appreciate all the help everyone has contributed to this page. I would like to learn just how to validate it. I am learning my way around slowly so any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Yes, I have much knowledge on the FACTS to this breed and would like to help portray them appropriately within the pages of Wikipedia. Sincerely, Don Pelon (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have re-formatted the article so that it doesn't look like an adevertisement. I still have to rectify the citations and add photos. I am still trying to figure out how to create a reflist in correlation to the citations wihin in the article. This article will be on going due to my lack of knowledge on how to use wikipedia. As time allows I will continue to update referances as well as citations. Help from all editors of categories relating to this article will be welcome. Thank you, Don Pelon (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Photos
I do feel there a some better photos available at the commons that could be used on this page particularly this one. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Olde_English_Bulldogge_Duke.jpg --Ltshears (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a nice photo of Duke, but there is no way of verifying if he is an actual OEB or a Bulldog hybrid being referred to as an OEB. The photo that is currently on this page is a REAL Olde English Bulldogge that is registered with the American Rare Bereed Association and the Parent Club of the Breed, the Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club. I will try to add more photos of ACTUAL OEB's to the Gallery in the near futureDon Pelon (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Maybe the photo would look better if it was cropped in closer to the dog, right now it looks very small in the photo and hard to see detail..--Ltshears (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Health: WP:NPOV?
To me, the Health section comes off as biased, and the lack of citations certainly doesn't help. Dukeofwulf (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Health: WP:NPOV?
This section isn't biased at all. Minimal knowledge of Bulldogs as well as the OEB will verify the information in this section. Citations may help, but cursory research of the breeds health will verify the information stated within the section. Don Pelon (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing without topic knowledge
With respect to the editing skills of the Wikipedia editors, it would be most helpful to those of us involved with the OEB if the editors of this page had a little knowledge of what they were editing. Some of the info in this article can't be cited yet. Although, written affidavits can certainly be ascertained to confirm that the informaion is factual. I apologize for not being nearly as well versed in the use of Wikipedia as many regular contributors, but I will keep trying to get better. Thank You. Don Pelon (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism in "Characteristics" section
I have blanked the entire "Characteristics" section, because it appeared to be composed entirely of material copied directly from. Someone who can write the section using multiple sources, and without plagiarizing, should do so. Tad Lincoln (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Information in the Characteristics section is from the standard for the OEB, a document within the public domain and not owned/copyrighted by an individual or entity. It was not created by the owners of the website you linked, therefore is not plagarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss 051 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism
User 98.124.95.22 has repeatedly attempted to add their website to the EL's and insert themselves into either the Breed Standard or other sections. This user/organization is not affiliated with the Olde English Bulldogge breed and was certainly not involved with the writing of the standard for submission to the CDHPR, which they claimed in one of the most recent revisions. Their attempts are blantant marketing scams to make money off unwitting persons researching the OEB breed. Is it possible to block this user from modifying this page further? Ss 051 (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

A user is repeatedly coming in and modifying the table of disqualifications with inaccurate information. The correct information (that docked, kinked or screw tails are a disqualification) can be verified in the standard referenced within the article. I will add a link to the standard, found on the CDHPR website, but I'm not sure it will do any good.--Ss 051 (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Uncited changes to this article
This article has been written and validated with available literature on the Olde English Bulldogge. More recent articles such as a Dog Fancy breed profile from 2005, and a Dog World rare breed spotlight from the March 2009 issue corroborate this information despite not being referenced in the article. A user is still editing the Disqualfications table with incorrect information based on a registry that is not recogized and does not register dogs that are purebred or would be considered Olde English Bulldogges per this articles description. It would be nice to make this article accurate for people learning about the breed, but unfortunately the rampant misinformation regarding this breeds history (for the monetary benefit of people registering mix-breed dogs as OEB's) is interfering with this accurate information from being available. There are several options to help fix this:

1. This article can be locked somehow and only edited with information from a legitimate source, i.e. online publications from topic experts such as the AKC, UKC, or other legitimate/recognized registries, or topic experts who have published information for commercial sale. Unfortunately, even the latter has instances of accurate historical information (inline with this article) only to use images of dogs who don't meet the criteria for the written substance of their own text.

2. A secondary article could be drafted to clarify that use of the OEB name is common as a catch-all term for mixed-breed "designer" dogs who are not related to the original OEB described in this article. --Ss 051 (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Images Used and EL for the parent club
This article has been written using references showing the history of the breed tracing back to the original foundation of David Leavitt. Dogs that do not come from this foundation are not considered by the United Kennel Club (or OEBKC, the parent club for the breed per the UKC) to be Olde English Bulldogges. The dogs being added are not OEB's per this article. Black coats and red noses are disqualifications in the standard for the OEB (see the UKC website) because those genetics do not exist in the breed. I am removing the images of the 3 dogs that have these colors (I am the registrar for the OEBKC and approve all registrations with the UKC). I am also removing the other images of pups and dogs that have unknown backgrounds. Barkley is a Milo Run's dog, produced by Bonnie Connor, and has been part of this article for a long time. Bruno-Tattoo comes from Delmar/Birchwood/Royal Blood bloodlines and is also a dog with a known pedigree.

I am also going to reinstate the EL to the OEBKC, which was used as a reference for the historical section. The OEBKC is a non-profit organization and the parent club for the breed. Recent EL added is to a breeders website and would be considered an advertisement per Wikipedia guidelines. Ss 051 (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Ss 051, what is the problem with those pictures you keep removing? And if you are a breeder, why not make some pictures that make you happy? Hafspajen (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming to the talk page to discuss this ; it's difficult to know what images are best to use when they have been uploaded and marked as OEB and I'm sure we would all appreciate your help to try getting this article into better shape overall. does tremendous work adding images and info to articles and has a terrific eye for layout of images, so I hope everyone will continue to collaborate here.   SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  15:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SagaciousPhil. In my oppinion we do need more pictures, only two pictures are very little. One can't get an idea of how this dog looks like. Hafspajen (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue (nothing personal) is that anyone can upload a photo and call it an OEB. The problem with this breed is that starting in the mid-80's people began cross-breeding bulldogs and using the breed name that Leavitt came up with for his creation. Since then the "designer dog" fad has gotten huge and everyone is doing it now. The number of designer dogs using the OEB name vs. purebred dogs from Leavitts original foundation (that this article applies to) is literally somewhere above 100:1. That is why acceptance by the UKC was so huge for the breed and why the OEBKC continues to try and get accurate information out there. People generally don't understand where their dog comes from and assume that it is a purebred dog when it isn't. I'll try and upload some photo's of dogs that are OEBs (that will have UKC registration after Jan 1, 2014) so some additional images can be included.Ss 051 (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding some images, ; I've amended the caption as it's not appropriate to include Kennel names as it's considered as advertising/promotion (dog's names are not generally included). It will be great if you can add some more - I'm sure will help with laying them out, if necessary ....   SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  18:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, please try and upload some photo's of dogs that are OEBs. Otherwise everybody will get confused. Hafspajen (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done! Looks good. But Ss 051; that camera angle on Olde English Bulldogge Puppies... You can do that better, now, can't you? Hafspajen (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, now where are those pictures again...? Hafspajen (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. bd2412 T 19:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Olde English Bulldogge → Olde English Bulldogge (UKC) – Breeders are using the name "Olde English Bulldogge" for several lineages, but this page currently has been stripped down to cover a single true-breeding lineage, a narrow selection from the lineage (Leavitt Bulldog) developed by David Leavitt. The Dorset Olde Tyme Bulldogge is unrelated, but was merged into this page. Leavitt Bulldog is another attempt to untangle some of the confusion. There is another organization, the International Old English Bulldogge Association that registers dogs under the name "Olde English Bulldogge" but uses a different standard from the UKC, and places no restrictions on their ancestry other than that they are "pure bred". I propose that two pages would be a better solution, one called Old English Bulldogge (UKC) and Old English Bulldogge (IOEBA). relisted Andrewa (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would support this if Old English Bulldog was moved to Old English Bulldog (extinct) or similar, this page was moved to Olde English Bulldogge (UKC), Olde English Bulldogge was made into a page similar to Sled dog or Schnauzer, and Old English Bulldog was converted into a disambig linking to the three. -- T K K  public  (Bark at me \\ Block this account if it's acting funny!) 21:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: - like that suggestion. There do not appear to be any pages about dog breeds that currently have "(extinct)" in the title, so that would be a novelty. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. as above TTK. Hafspajen (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose the move as proposed: this is currently a basket for several similar re-creation attempts, including the Dorset olde doggie thingie that has just been merged here; moving it to the name of one of them would leave nowhere for the others (and the other Leavitt attempt should probably be merged here too, btw). But whatever. However, I strongly oppose any suggestion of moving the articles on long-established English breeds to make way for these recently created, and in all probability ephemeral, hybrids. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
It seems to me that Old English Bulldog should be a three-way DAB between this page, the Leavitt Bulldog and the page currently at Old English Bulldog. Unsure of where that last should be moved. The two standards for Olde English Bulldogge can comfortably be described on one page, it is essentially the same breed, so there's no need for parenthetical disambiguation. Andrewa (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Heads-up posted in view of my proposal affecting another page. Andrewa (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Regarding Move and IOEBA
I just noticed the discussion here and would like to clarify a few things. 1. The IOEBA does not register purebred Olde English Bulldogges. This is a statement of fact. They continue to allow crossbreeding to happen unrestricted and even their "generational" registrations could not remotely be considered purebred. This would automatically disqualify these dogs from even being referenced within the "Dog Breeds" heading of Wikipedia, since all breeds are implicitly purebred. In order for a breed to be created there are several things that have to happen. First is a Foundation Event. Second is Isolation. Third is inbreeding (a results of Isolation). This happened naturally in the distant past and is the reason we have most of the breeds in existence today. New breeds like the OEB still follow these same "rules" however. Leavitt's breedings in the 1970's was the Foundation Event. His formation of the OEBA was Isolation (he did not allow others to register unrelated dogs). And the following years of inbreeding created and solidified the breed as purebred. No other "OEB" bloodlines have followed this pattern. What you find in any other registry is a group of dogs descended from literally dozens, if not hundreds, of Foundation Events. No Isolation has happened. This is not a matter of having different "types" of OEBs. The only OEB breed is that which was created by David Leavitt. Other, newer, bloodlines are unrelated to these UKC lines as well as to each other. 2. Regarding puppy buyers who discover that their dogs may not grow to match the UKC standard; see my statements above. These people have purchased dogs from breeders who falsly label their dogs as OEB's. Many of these breeders don't even realize it, they themselves are ignorant. It isn't about the standard in this case. Even if the dog grew up to match the standard it would still not be registered by the UKC unless it was actually an offspring of UKC registered dogs. If I breed a Rottweiler to a Greyhound and the pups grow up to match the standard for a Dobermann, they would still not be Dobermanns. They would be mixed breeds dogs.

Moving and/or renaming this article would be a gross error and would in fact lead to further abuse of both the purebred OEB bloodlines and the puppy buyers who are duped into buying (for a significant amount of money most often) a dog under false-pretenses. Ss 051 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference to IOEBA will be removed
The IOEBA does not register purebred OEB's, which is the definition of a "breed". Other dogs are "types", also known as designer dogs and some specific examples of working dogs, and are not related to this article. If an article describing the dogs they register is desired my suggestions would be to create a new one named Alternative Bulldogs. Research has been performed to very the information in this article, going back to the early 1980's and books printed at the time that specifically talk about Leavitt creating the breed. No other "breed" under the same name is possible.Ss 051 (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * When someone comes to wikipedia to find out what is meant by the phrase "old english bulldogge", if they read the stripped down page as you now have it, they will be misled. As the history of this page shows, there are people who have bought and photographed an "old english bulldogge" that doesn't match the Leavitt standard. It looks to me as if it is very likely that someone would buy a puppy that will grow up to not match the Leavitt standard, so they don't even notice a problem until later. How is what you have done a service to these people? Surely it is better to discuss the confusion. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My suggestions is the create a separate article for Alternative Bulldogs. A minor reference can be made within this article to the new article so long as it is clear what the differences between the two are, and that new article accurately lists the known registries that represent this type of bulldog (IOEBA, NBA, WBA, OBBA, CKC, ACA, OBS, NEBR, etc).  I would be interested to hear what rationale is provided for the use of the name Olde English Bulldogge by most of these groups as wellSs 051 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC).