Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/Archive 1

Mixxed up histories
This article seems to be mixing up the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the Bull Terrier. It's the Bull Terrier that was developed by James Hinks according to what I've read so far. I will do some more reading on this though befre making any major changes. -- sannse (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2004 (UTC) This appears to be correct (i.e. that Hinks "developed" the Bull Terrier; however the "bull and terrier" breads were relatively common in 18th and 19th century England.  Breeders appear to have been mixing varieties in order to create an ideal "pit" breed.  "Today's Bull Terrier is the direct descendant of the original bull-and-terrier crosses made in England, specifically to bait bulls and, later to fight in pits. The breed was standardized in England in the early 1850's by James Hinks. The first accepted color was white, but colored dogs were later allowed."  (http://www.ukcdogs.com/RegistrationBreeds.htm).  "The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a descendant of the Bull and Terrier crosses made in Great Britain in the late 1700's. It was given the name "Staffordshire" in reference to an area where it was very popular, to differentiate it from the other Bull and Terrier breeds." http://www.ukcdogs.com/RegistrationBreeds.htm

The Staffordshire Bull Terrier was recognized by the United Kennel Club in 1975.

The Bull Terrier was recognized by the United Kennel Club in 1948.

I was just coming here to type the same thing. See for example: history of staffordshire and bull terrier. Elf | Talk 19:26, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I have read into this also quite extensively but i believe the staffe was derived from a version of the bull terrier, the bull terrier being the original "legitimate" breed of dog with the staffe evolving as a spin off, either way every article i read seems to contradict the next so this article seems a fair representation seing as it cites the bull terrier as the first dog of this type to be recognised by the kenel club.


 * If you study the old paintings and drawings of dogs used for bull and bear baiting you'll find the modern day Staffordshire bull terrier to be a far closer match than the Bull terrier. I highly doubt that the staffie is a "spin off" of the bull terrier, more likely the other way around.

Woops I just stuffed this page up - umm can someone fix it thanks

No Mention of the Staffies lockjaw it is poorly written please can this be cleaned up


 * Not sure what you're referring to by "lockjaw". I did a search and found this info (for the APBT but I suspect it applies to all BTs...)
 * "The few studies which have been conducted of the structure of the skulls, mandibles and teeth of pit bulls show that, in proportion to their size, their jaw structure and thus its inferred functional morphology, is no different than that of any breed of dog. There is absolutely no evidence of the existence of any kind of 'locking mechanism' unique to the structure of the jaw and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier."


 * There's more of that sort of thing out there; also comments that "lock jaw" just means that they have very strong jaws (don't know about comparison of strength to other dog breeds). So not much to add so far... Elf | Talk 22:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

never heard of jimmy Hinks in relation to the SBT
Hi there, I'm going to be adding a few new articles on the development and early history of the SBT. These articles will solely focus on the Uk where the breed originates. Any objections if I make a few alterations to the introduction of this article?? Seems rather incomplete and inaccurate at this stage. Cheers.


 * Edit away. But is there any reason that there need to be "a few new articles"? I'm having trouble picturing anything other than additions to this same article in the History section--let alone more than one other article--even if it gets quite long. That would be fine--lots of long articles in Wikipedia. Elf | Talk 21:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello!

there were several holes in this write up i made some changes. I think the entire section about the BT should be deleted as it really has little bearing to the SBT. Cheers! Tony Avenson Thunderstruck! Staffordshire Bull Terriers

Neutral
This article is not written in the neutral point of view. Especally this passage-

"But visit that family at home and you’re likely to be met by a boisterous though very affectionate human-orientated dog who is happy to see you, loves nothing more than playing with the kids and will roll over if given the slightest opportunity for a tummy rub."

Come now, whoever wrote this was an strong dog lover but it shouldnt be on wikipedia. Jesus On Wheels 17:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Random Rant at the bottom of the page
Firstly if I'm messing this talk page up, sorry; I haven't posted on many talk pages in my time. Anyway I noticed this at the bottom of Breed Specific Legislation: "By the way if anyone thinks that the staffordshire bull terrier is bred to be a killer, then you are wrong!! there are plenty of people that own staffies and they know as well as i do that they are a family dog and that they love children and have a very good nature! so there!!!" I presume it should be removed, but I thought I'd post here first just in case. Get back to me someone with more experience/judgement please? Sakrotac 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC) there is a ban in clay center kansas wed site www.cityofclaycenter.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

attacking other dogs?
i notice this article states 'They will not start fights with other dogs...' is this true? i know for a fact that this is untrue, but may have been specific to this one staffie. this particular staffie attacked a jack russell, ripped a huge chunk out of the jack russell's neck, and bit it's bottom. luckily the jack russell is still alive and doing well, and the staffie's owner is being charged. the staffie was not on a lead and not wearing a muzzle, and the owner did nothing to stop her dog. there's also the possibility this has happened before.

anyway, with this in mind, again, is it true that staffie's don't start fights with other dogs, or is this staffie the exception? if this can't be verified, i think this statement should be removed, as it's misleading.

---

You can't say that staffs do or don't start fights. A dog that starts a fight does so for reasons such as feeling threatened, protecting territory/owner, or maybe it has been handled in a way that has taught the dog to become violent. A dog does not start a fight because it is an SBT. It is purely based on circumstance not breed. It could have been the Jack Russell attacking the SBT and not the other way around, it is just as likely. 'They will not start fights with other dogs...' I do not believe this can be said with certainty as every dog is different, but then again I doubt a dog will attack another just because of what breed it is.

---

exactly what i said above, it can't be said that they do or don't. therefore i will remove the statement. in the case above, however, it was definitely the SBT that attacked the Jack Russell. the SBT wasn't on a lead, and wasn't muzzled, and the dog ran across the road to get to the Jack Russell, so i don't think this is a case of feeling threatened or protecting it's owner. the owner shouted to the jack russell owner, please, keep your dog away from mine, it's not safe, and then the SBT attacked. the fact the owner knew her SBT was like this, she should have had it on a lead and possibly muzzled. i don't have any respect for owners who don't train their dogs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a fairly uncommon dog in the United States. If you look at the number of SBT breeders listed around the internet and puppies that are actually available for sale on some of the puppy for sale websites you will find that the number of breeders with Staffordshire Bull Terriers is very small. The most reputable kennel club is the AKC and that is what nearly all SBT are registered under, also the UKC has a growing number of SBT's. The breed standard for a SBT according to any of the breed registries is 38 pounds or less. While some are larger than the 38 pounds, I know for a fact that Sonshine Stafford’s in CA has a couple males that are 45-48 pounds which is huge according to the standard. Many people do not know the difference between a SBT and an American Staffordshire Terrier. The American Staffordshire Terrier is registered in the AKC as the American Staffordshire Terrier and is registered under the UKC and several other registries as an American Pit-bull Terrier. If you go to any AMStaff page you will see that if they are dual registered they are AKC and UKC, but with two different names. With the SBT this is not the case a Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a Staffordshire Bull Terrier no matter what registry you look at. It is its own breed and is as related to the AMstaff and Pit Bull as an English Bulldog is. They come from the same lines but are bred with different reasons. Another thing about all bully breeds is they commonly do not start fights it is body language that will set off a dog to attack. If you are nervous as the handler, the dog will be nervous. If you are calm the dog will be calm or it will try to take control. For that reason being calm is good, but with being calm a sense of Assertiveness, like you have a feeling of power is necessary to control a dog, especially a bully breed. Many of these dogs attack due to a look from another dog, which is one of the forms of body language that dogs use to challenge or stand up to other dogs. With bully breeds including SBT, Amstaffs, and APBT they are not the ones to sit back and have a staring contest they will be the ones to initiate a physical attack after being provoked with something as simple as a stare from the biggest dog out there to the smallest dog out there. If someone had the time I would like to try and figure out of all of attacks by "pitbulls" were the dogs AKC registered in the USA and KC registered in England for the UK which is the most reputable and recognized registries in the world. It is a lack of education and knowledge about the differences between the cousins SBT, Amstaff, and Pitbulls. They are generally assumed as one due to their similar appearance to each other. I have owned an Amstaff and currently own two Staffordshire Bull terriers whom are AKC registered and there is a tremendous difference between the two temperaments wise. It is mostly due to AKC registered Staffordshire Bull Terrier breeders breed for the right reasons which are temperament first, looks second, and that there are such a small number of breeders/dogs throughout the US in comparison to other dogs such as the Pit-bull which is commonly a backyard bred dog from my experience living in Montgomery, AL. In the newspaper classifieds there are at least twenty to thirty listings a week for Pit bulls. Not AKC Amstaffs or SBT's. I take my dogs to the vet here and they have never seen a SBT in person which I would say literally 85% of the US population hasn’t either. And there is different temperaments between breeders and bloodlines, plus the average price for an AKC or UKC registered Staffordshire bull terrier is $1200 which keeps the dog in such good quality whereas you can find $100-$200 pit bull puppies in excess due to irresponsible backyard breeders and puppy mills and irresponsible owners breeding unregistered dogs to make a couple hundred dollars having no clue where their back round comes from, which is becoming a problem with SBT's in England in recent years(I lived there for two years as well) the cheap backyard breeding promotes irresponsible breeding and irresponsible ownership in some cases where the owner doesn’t get the dog spayed or neutered, which should be automatic with a non-registered dog, because it is in every breeds best interest to breed the best of their breed and strive to keep those breeds quality dogs. Don’t take this as my opinion it is what I have found through personal experience and research for the last 4 years of just about every breeder in the United States for SBT and Amstaffs and Pitbulls. SBT are unique dogs and should only be classified as a cousin to the Amstaff and Pitbulls just as an English bulldog would be and never included in the same group for research or other statistical purposes. The only thing SBT are guilty of is having the appearance of smaller version of a pit-bull. Meet just one SBT and you will like the dog. (I know this distracts from the original reason for the discussion here but I felt I would share my knowledge for more understanding of persons who did not know. Well now you know and knowing is half the battle!  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlause (talk • contribs).

A correctly trained Staffie is unlikely to start a fight with another dog although like any dog if they are not familiarised with other dogs they can be agressive. Generally where a Staffie is blamed for starting a fight with another dog the other dog involved is a smaller breed as in the example above a Jack Russel Terrier the fight is started by the smaller dog as it feels threatened by the presence of the larger dog for want of a better term "small man syndrome" I have seen a Staffie happily playing with smaller dogs when a male JRT joined in and imediatly set on the Staffie with what could have been a sad ending for both dogs but luckily the owner of the Staffie like any good owner of any animal should do was paying attention and reacted quickly and called his dog off not only did the Staffie walk away from the fight it was also the only animal injured in the scuffle having a peice of cheek torn away while walking away from the encounter as it did no more then growl and bear its teeth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.53.167 (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The 'Miscellaneous' section
I think that the part of the miscellaneous section about the way that staffies lie on the ground is completely unverifiable (and false?). It says: "'Staffies' have another peculiar characteristic. When lying down in a resting position they sit, rather than domestic dogs or wolves, with their hind legs tucked in, but rather with them splayed out behind them... Why Staffies are otherwise unique in the dog family for doing so remains unclear." Many dogs lie on the ground like this, it is not a trait specific to staffies. This section needs to be edited (or removed) to reflect this. Randomlyred 12:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Indeed, it's hardly a unique behavior to Staffies - it's commonly observed in puppies, although most dogs stop doing it as they grow older. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

While it is common for alot of dog breeds to lie with their legs splayed behind them it is a characteristic of the more muscular breeds in particular as it allows the muscles in the animals hind legs rest in a different position and increase circulation to the muscles much like an athlete having a massage. Another reason for the animal to do this Staffies in particular is to act as a heat transfer with the legs out behind more area is in contact with the ground effecting greater heat loss as Staffies are prone to overheating

While it is true that Staffies ride low in the water it is untrue they are poor swimmers as I often take my dog to the beach I have seen him outswim many other breeds. This perhaps may be due to muscle mass as when most dogs swim their front legs do the most work and while not as muscled as the hind quaters of the dogs the fore-limbs are still quite large and muscular this coupled with the fore-paws of the breed that while bearing weight look smaller then they actually are, when splayed the fore-paws are quite large and work extremely effectively as paddles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.53.167 (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

House Style
Isn't the use of gender-specific pronouns - 'him/her', 'he/she', etc. - in this piece rather clumsy and naive? Surely 'it' is the appropriate pronoun for animals and breeds..?

86.130.68.17 23:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, using 'he' or 'she' is much better than it. These are living creatures, not inanimate objects. The article is talking about them and referring to them using 'he/she' is prefectly reasonable. RiotMonday 23:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Coffee?
Does it really need to be said that Staffies enjoy coffee? It seems too childish, and varying, to me. The Staffie I know of does not like the taste of coffee. RiotMonday 23:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Health?
Anyone care to add a health section for this breed? One of the biggest concerns, of course, being that they are short-nosed dogs, meaning they have more difficulty breathing in hot weather and tend to overheat faster than long-nosed dogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiotMonday (talk • contribs) 23:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Odd phrase in passage
The phrase "There is no doubt that Staffies are the safest and friendliest of the bull terrier breeds." is completely subjective and is impossible to prove. Should probably be removed.

Actually, it should not be removed, but rather the author should give statistics and sources supporting this. If one researches the breed online, there are numerous articles pointing out how there are no documented deadly attacks by Staffordshire Bull Terriers in North America. Also, in spite of erroneous assumptions to the contrary by many who are ignorant about the breed (those who lump it in with other "Pit Bulls" that have attacked people), Staffordshire Bull Terriers (not the same breed as the American Staffordshire Bull Terrier or the American Pit Bull Terrier) are not known for attacking humans. In fact, it has been bred into them not to attack people. It has also been bred into them to be particularly affectionate toward and protecive of children).

The above is true antecdotally. I own a Staffie and I have friends who own Staffies (although it's an uncommon breed in the U.S.). Every Staffie that I've come across loves people and particularly children. They are hit and miss with other dogs, but reliable with humans. Moreover, every owner of a bully breed, and particulalry an APBT or AmStaff should know the definition of gameness, which has nothing to do with aggressiveness. I would challenge anyone to prove that Staffies, or other bully breeds, are human-agressive. Gameness is a canine virtue that is most akin to the human virtue of unflagging courage. It is a determination to master any situation and never back down out of fear. Generally speaking, a game dog is an emotionally stable, easy-going dog, especially good with kids. Gameness should not be confused with aggressiveness. There are plenty of aggressive dogs that are not game, and there are game pit bulls who are not aggressive toward other types of dogs.

I own a SBT and so do many friends they are all very good with children and will let the children do many things to them that other dogs would get angry with, such as sit on them, pull their ears, i have even seen one staffie draging a child round on his harness like some kind of game. But i would never live any child on their own with ANY kind of dog, this is becaue at the end of the day a dog is an animal and if a small child does something to annoy it it may resond in a way which seem fine towards an adult but not towards a child. I love my staff hes the best dog i have ever had. But a word of warnig about them they are very greedy and will chew your funriture so make sure you have plenty of chew toys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.143.113 (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

French law
I just want to add that according to French law, Staffordshire Bull Terriers with pedigrees are not subject to the law on dangerous dogs in France: they are neither 1st cat (attack) dogs nor 2nd cat (defence) dogs. French law recognizes that there is no proof that they present a particular danger (as opposed to the Pitbull, Boerbull, American bull, Tosa etc....) --Scotchorama (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio?
This article is basically lifted verbatim from the Burkes Backyard website. Probably a pretty good reference, but they should have been acknowledged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.72.96 (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific about what you feel has been copied from the site and give a URL? AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Facts box
Hi, I have altered the facts box slightly. I have changed the guard dog and watch dog ability to LOW, as before it stated HIGH. The stafford is an extremely poor guard dog and are not meant to be subjected to any training that ceates aggression towards humans. Although they can be protective of family members and their car they rarely guard their homes. I also changed the temperment by removing humourous, friendly and adoring to bold, fearless and totally reliable (KC standards). Staffords are certainly NOT naturally obedient. They were bred to think for themselves not to be commanded. Whoever has added this section does not have a Stafford!! Thanks, Rachel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.72.96 (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you wish to change it, you need to give a reliable source supporting. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Lee, Clare (1998). Pet Owner's Guide To The Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Pg 18 "The stafford was not developed as a watchdog - he rarely barks, greets all your visitors and may well let them walk off with the family silver." "Staffords may 'guard' their car, but rarely their own home"

"Most tasks that dogs perform for man require the dog to follow instruction. In the fighting situation the dog has to think for himself - his very existence may depend upon it" - not naturally obedient.

Temperament as described in the Kennel Club standards. "Bold, fearless and totally reliable" http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=87 The characteristics humourous, friendly and adoring are biased and presumably have no reliable source.

Could you give me the original, reliable source of the facts box?! Thanks, Rachel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.72.96 (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A news article from german Spiegel
The following article - http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,428158,00.html (german) - is on an incident where an American Staffordshire Terrier has bitten an old lady to death. So they're childfriendly but kill off the elderly? Some kind of society rejuvenation progam perhaps? I don't feel capable of rewriting the Staffordshire Terrier wiki article, being a strong dog hater and incapable of keeping a NPOV - but I really think it should be done. Essentially it trys to persuade people to disregard the dangers emanating from a Kampfhund (german word for a dog bred for fighting), so it reads like propaganda.

Do you know the difference between American ST and the original SBT?! It's clear that you don't

What are the differences then? The one is a pet dog an the other nastily bytes people to death? Strikingly, both wikientries advertise their respective species as "friendly". As the species are closely related it might not be overly feasible to have them mentioned in different wikipedia articles - particularly if some of them defend "their" species as the one having to take the blame for the agressiveness of the others. Additionally I would suggest not using the word "Staffie" in an encyclopedia article, it makes the writers lack of npov all too obvious.

All breeds of dog are of one species. Breeds, strains, crossbreeds, and mixed breeds are different varieties of the single species Canis familiaris (sometimes classified as Canis lupus familiaris). 72.251.79.99 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

-

It seems silly to deny that any breed of dog can bite and harm humans, since most breeds contain dogs that have hurt or killed someone at some point. However, none of the other dog breed pages I have seen on wikipedia listed dog attacks perpetrated by that breed. Why should the Staffordshire Bull Terrier page be any different - I don't see why this page would discuss dog attacks by this breed if the other breed pages don't? Or do you think that all dog breed pages should list all attacks by that particular breed? Sounds like a big job to me.

I do agree that this page (like most dog breed pages) tends to be dominated by the pro-dog crowd. However, since these are the people that are most interested in and most knowledgeable about their particularl breed, I don't feel this is suprising. Just like the siamese cat pages tend to be written by people who like siamese cats, the dog pages will tend to be written by people who own and like each particular breed.

Incidentally, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier (SBT) and the American Staffordshire Terrier (AST) are two distinctly different dog breeds. The SBT was developed in England from bull-terrier type dogs quite a while ago; whereas the AST was developed in America much more recently, from American Pitbull Terrier (APBT) ancestors. In appearance, the SBT tends to be smaller and stockier than the AST. Both were orginally bred to be friendly towards humans and aggressive towards other dogs. All three breeds (SBT, AST, APBT) are commonly termed 'pitbulls' in America, after their two original functions (fighting other dogs in a pit, and baiting bulls). However, in the UK, Australia and NZ, only the American Pitbull Terrier is considered a 'pitbull'. Just FYI, since you asked! - Rachel 23:06, 3 Oct 2006 VERY HAPPY SBT OWNER How can anyoneBold text who has never had the pleasure of owning such a wonderful and loyal breed of dog criticise them in this way. I 100% trust my dog around people and children. Dogs only behave bad when they are not properly handled by their owners,this is evident in any breed of dog not just solely the SBT.***
 * I am a very satisfied SBT owner and I am sick and tired of pathetic non dog owners and ignorant people saying vile things about this fantastic breed of dog.

--

Should somebody add to the article that SBTs in the USA are becoming popular in the relay retrieving sport of Flyball? This is a sport that requires the Staffordshire to work with many other dogs and different handlers. The SBT excels in this sport (along with Border Collies, and many other small terriers) because of its agility and desire to please its human handlers. Obviously a vicious dog would not qualify for this sport. (No, I don't own an SBT). 72.251.79.99 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC) ---

I am a proud SBT owner also and you may have not noticed that this is a discussion about STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER's and you qouted an atack by an AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER this does not enque as an attack by an SBT. people like you are who give SBT's a bad name and reputatation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.126.54 (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Breed Specific Legislation
Can't believe that this article neglected to mention that SBTs are banned or restricted in many parts of the world! It seems like a pretty important point to mention when discussing this breed, so I put a new section in the article. - Rachel 23:28, 3 Oct 2006

can u proceed to mention were they are banned because to my knowlegde they ar not banned ANYWHERE!! You are probably making a very common mistake made by so many Ignorant people confusing a pure breed SBT with the Pitt bull terrier!! Why are the SBT called nanny dogs???? think about it. Jo..

Any dog that is deemed a "pitbull or pitbull mix" is banned in Ontario Canada. It is a stupid law that is more of a guilty until proven innocent method than a fair law. The owner has to "prove" their dog isn't a "pitbull" which is defined as anything with pitbull, or staff(american or otherwise) in it. We've had dogs that a CKC judge has declared as a no pitbull mix be killed because a legal judge has diagreed....What a stupid law.

It is illegal in Miami-Dade county, Florida to house a "pitbull or pitbull mix". comment added by 24.234.110.186 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Get Your History Right
Please, the Bull-and-Terrier was bred for the purpose of dog fighting, while specimens may have existed pre-1835, it was purposefully bred only following the prohibition of bullbaiting. Therefore, the dog could not have served as a bull or lion baiter - though some records show it was placed against apes armed w/ clubs and against Donkey. And the Staffordshire Terrier is a "Bullterrier" not because it descends from terriers matched against bulls, but because Terriers were crossed to Bulldogs to create the prototype/ancestor of this breed. Get your facts straight, seriously, it looks despicable.

There are many accounts of Bull Terriers being pitted against anything from a lion to a bull, it is a common misconception that the dog was bred for the purpose of dogfighting.


 * I added a reference to the American Kennel Club's website where they explain that the breed originated from the days of bull and bear baiting. But it should be noted that the article then goes on to explain that "Early in the 19th century the sport of dogfighting gained popularity and a smaller, faster dog was developed. It was called by names such as "Bulldog Terrier" and "Bull and Terrier." The Bulldog bred then was a larger dog than we know today and weighed about 60 pounds. This dog was crossed with a small native terrier which appears in the history of the present-day Manchester Terrier. The dog which this produced, averaging between 30 and 45 pounds, became the Staffordshire Bull Terrier." --Popoi (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance is bliss!
I am, and have been a happy SBT owner for over 20 years. I find it very disturbing that mis-informed, close-minded and ignorant people can believe the labelleing that the SBT has received, mainly by the media. Who, let's not forget, post articles to sell papers or attract viewers to make money. Objective. I think not.

I challenge any of these people to spend a little time with SBT's and get to know them before passing judgements or trying to get SBT's banned. I am certain that these people would find the SBT to be happy, strong, playful dogs with lovely personalities.

I agree that the SBT needs lots of attention, needs to be well socialised with both people and other dogs and needs to be supervised. But if a SBT owner is willing to devote the time necessary to keep a SBT they will not only have a beautiful pet but a loving member of the family.

Be objective and only pass judgement gained from personal experience. Only then, are your comments fair and indeed valid.

Brad, loving SBT owner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.116.180 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
The current introductory paragraph states:

The Staffordshire Bull Terrier (informally: Staffie or Staffy) is a medium-sized, short-coated, old-time breed of dog, originally bred for bull baiting

Someone apparently requested a citation for that statement, and I added one from the AKC. As I discussed above, this description doesn't do the SBT's history full justice. The fact is that they were originally bred for dogfighting, but after that The sport of dogfighting had long been made illegal and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier had evolved into a dog of such temperament as to make him a fine pet and companion and a worthy show dog.

I propose we fully disclose the history of the SBT but also emphasize that the dog bred for fighting is long gone, and what we have today is a family dog. Here is my suggested revision:

''The Staffordshire Bull Terrier (informally: Staffie or Staffy) is a medium-sized, short-coated, old-time breed of dog. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed has its origins in the bear and bull baiting breeds of Elizabethan era England and the dog fighting breeds of the early 19th centrury. In modern times, however, the breed has been appreciated for its loyalty, dependability, and good temperament.''

Thoughts?

--Popoi (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism
http://www.akc.org/breeds/staffordshire_bull_terrier/

Dear 212.183.134.65, the version you reverted to is "a more literate and informative version" because it is taken word-for-word from the above web page. Plagiarism from copyrighted web pages is not allowed on Wiki and will be reverted as soon as possible. Please do not restore plagiarized content. I'm sure there are references for this section, or even a slight rewrite of the AKC article with a reference would be fine. Bob98133 (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What an excellent breed
the staffy breed is a loyal, placid yet fearless breed, dalmations and alsations are but two other dogs classed as dangerous. With a name like the nanny dog,this speaks volumes about the quality and reliability of this breed. A fearless protective nanny!

Dr Lee Dean


 * I'm not sure the name is a valid reference for the breeds' behavior. See: Bob98133 (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Netherlands BSL
Registered Staffordshire Bull Terriers were never affected by the BSL in the Netherlands. Is this inclusion in the article a) relevant b) written in the correct style? see: http://www.torontohumanesociety.com/newsandevents/stories/2008/08-08g.asp Benvenuto (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Pit Bull?
There are dozens of references that refer to this breed as a Pit Bull. Please provide references as to why this should not be listed, or listed as obsolete. http://www.breederretriever.com/dog-breeds/218/staffordshire-bull-terrier-pit-bull.php http://www.bulldogbreeds.com/americanpitbullterrier.html http://www.la-spca.org/dedication/talk/tt_AMstaff.htm By the way, 212.., I didn't make this edit, but your rudeness and use of profanity encouraged me to document how wrong you were. Bob98133 (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Article need to be re-written
This is an encyclopedia, not a kennel club manual. We should not be espousing what a kennel club 'prefers' in a breed. These are animals and the facts should be stuck to, not a single opinion about what constitutes the perfect dog. Mfield (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the AKC 'preferred' box. Its highly POV and should not be part of a balanced article about a species. Mfield (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. This article has been plagued with personal comments and how-to type content, and has ended up a bit of a mess. Bob98133 (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have started a complete overhaul and clean up. Mfield (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think the Kennel Club is a neutral source of information on these dogs' temperament either for two reasons. Firstly they are advocates for dogs and dog ownership in general, and secondly they are opposed to BSL so they have an interest in doing PR for targeted breeds.  It's not responsible to suggest these dogs are good with children without any balance or qualification.  There is a risk of someone taking this statement overly-literally and ignoring the dictum "never leave any dog alone with a child", which could result in a particularly severe mauling from a "staffie".  What is the meaning of the statement that these dogs are "good with children" anyway?  Since we have apparently to deal in typical dog-lover anthropomorphisized terms, when thinking of what I would consider the quality of being "good with children" in a fellow human, I would normally imagine some sort of sense of *responsibility*.  Obviously no dog, except perhaps the most trained specimens, has any real sense of responsibility whatsoever.  Being "friendly to children" and being "responsible with children" are two different things.  Paedophiles can appear to be extremely "friendly" to children.  Following the logic that these dogs are good with children, we should also add the statement that paedophiles are "often good with children" to the article on paedophiles.  I think the meaning that is meant to be conveyed is that "staffies" are "often affectionate and playful with children".  Fine.  I don't doubt they probably are.  We should counterbalance this by saying that like all dogs they can attack children without warning, and like all pitbull types they are notorious for particularly severe maulings of humans including children.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.200.221 (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. The problem seems to be that there are no formal qualifications for "dog experts" other than established groups like AKC or AVMA whose opinions may be influenced by other motives, as you state. I think the only way this will work is by presenting a balance of views both from these orgs and others, and news sources, or even minority opinions if they are identified as such. This article is better and more balanced than it was a few months ago, so it's getting there. There will always be comments by owners on a subject like this, so they just have to be dealt with. Bob98133 (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have spent a good hour or so trying to track down the 1996 Southampton University Study into behaviour that is referenced within the Temperament section. I have found an abstract, but not a full copy of the study. When searching is is very apparent that the overwhelming majority of internet references are all from Stafford sites, i.e. It looks to me as though this study is being referenced by stafford owners as some form of holly grail supporting the stafford temperament without real justification, as the references are coming from other websites and not the study itself.. As such I do not think that it is necessarily a neutral point of view to reference the NZ Kennel Club when they provide no reference to the study themselves. It would be best to reword that section based on actual information. Perhaps someone can point me to where the full version of the study can be found? "A survey of the behavioural characteristics of pure-bred dogs in the United Kingdom", Bradshaw JW, Goodwin D, Lea AM, Whitehead SL. Anthrozoology Institute, School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naughtysnakey (talk • contribs) 23:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Experimenting with children and dogs?
Removed the following: "The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is known in Australia to have saved many children's lives. Children and these dogs are placed in a pen and left unattended. Anything from bugs to snakes are killed by the dogs, and along with anything that could be a hazard."

This makes it sound like studies have been conducted, putting snakes into pens with children to see if the dog would kill them haha. I'm guessing whoever wrote it meant there have been reports by the public of such events happening. Nevertheless the claim is strong, such that it should not be in the article until reports can be verified.


 * Things like this make me wish that wikipedia articles on controversial topics would be especially short and filled with as few interpretations of gross facts as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.68.79 (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * An unverfied claim was challenged and removed. What is the problem? -Oosh (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No Deadly Attacks by Staffordshire Bull Terriers
The article mentions how the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is often blamed for vicious attacks on people. This is quite unfortunate because it has been bred into the Staffie to never attack people. Even when this dog was a pit fighting breed back in the 1700's, owners would often carry injured Staffies home on the wagon right next to the baby. I have done quite a bit of research on this and there does not appear to have ever been a single deadly attack on humans by a Staffordshire Bull Terrier in North America. There have been many documented deadly attacks on humans by American Pit Bull Terriers (unscrupulous people have unfortunately bred many of those dogs for modern-day pit fighting, and as vicious guard dogs), and there have been 2 or 3 human deaths by American Staffordshire Terriers since the 1940's. Even the weenie dog (datschund) has killed 2 people in the past 60 years in North America. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier has killed exactly zero. The larger ones (mine is approx. 85 pounds with a 28-inch round neck) can look like vicious pit-bulls, and could easily scare off would-be burglars who don't know the difference. However, the dog would just as soon lick an intruder to death as to bite him. And, all the stories you hear about Staffies being affectionate toward children are true. In fact, it is downright bizarre and almost scary to watch how these dogs respond to children. It appears to be bred into them to be especially loving to kids, and they somehow just know the difference between kids and adults. I've owned many dogs in my lifetime, and in fact have several different breeds of dogs currently. As useless as Staffies seem to be as guard dogs (other than looking tough), I wouldn't trade my Staffies away for any other breed. You just have to make sure that the young ones have something to cut their teeth on or they might start thinking your furniture is a chew toy.


 * There are no 80lb Staffordshire Bull Terriers from any reputable breeding program. this is more than twice the size of a Stafford.  Please refer to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed standard from ANY kennel club for more information.  Your dog would appear to fit the standard for an American Pit Bull Terrier ( excellent breed of dog) American Stafforshire Terrier ( also excellent) or possibly a Stafford mixed with a very large breed of dog and therefore not true SBT.  Hope this helps.  Tony Avenson, Thunderstruck! Staffordshire Bull Terriers

''§§§ It’s good you choose to defend the much maligned Stafforshire; it’s unfortunate you fail to grasp the harm maligning breeds unjustly can cause. Why have there been more documented attacks by Pit Bulls than Staffordshires? Mainly, because the lowlifes who want to own and/or fight vicious dogs ONLY know of Pit Bulls, or else have themselves bought into the myth that they are by nature more vicious than Stafforshires. The other explanation is that news reports of an attack by a Staff would almost certainly refer to it as a pitbull. The word “Pitbull“ makes for a more sensational headline than would “Staffordshire,” which would mean nothing to most Americans.''

''In fact, with a converstation with the head of the American Humane Society a few years ago, he remarked that most fatal attacks reported as having been committed by pit bulls were not actually purebred pit bulls at all. Any remotely bully breed is likely to be referred to in such situations as a “pit bull.” Even boxers and part boxers have been called pit bulls in some articles, and, in fact, on labels in some dog pounds.''

''You speak of Staffordshires being bred not to attack humans. If you’ve ever seen “Animal Precinct” on the Animal Planet channel you will have noticed how little fear animal control officers have of pit bulls they seize in the big cities where they have become very common in gang situations. None-the-less, in some cities - Detroit, for example - they are killed as soon as seized or surrendered, with no chance to be adopted.''

''The Staffordshire is named for the mining town in Britain where they were bred for pit fighting; the Pit Bull and the American Staffordshire derived whatever temperament they have from the Staffordshire’s “fighting spirit.” In fact, though, it is much more difficult to breed temperament or behavior into a dog than to breed changes in its appearance. In my own experience I have worked training two pit bulls for service dog routines; the only dogs in the program that became violent were a golden retriever (a seasoned service dog) and a German Shepherd. The pit bulls placidly ignored the quarrels.''

''In defending a breed of which you are fond you unfairly condemn another. I guess you shouldn’t be surprised when equally uninformed people condemn the Staffordshire, which, like the Pit Bull, the American Staffordshire, the American Bulldog, the Bull Terrier, the Boxer, or other dogs originally bred for blood sports, is an excellent, good-natured breed when not deranged by cruel training techniques.''

~ John Mayer

Wrong - A Staffordshire Bull Terier attacked and killed a baby boy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7876508.stm 81.155.106.207 (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That case was later proven to be an A.P.B.T renamed to avoid persucution--CarbriniTek (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where's the evidence of this?

John Mayer said:

"'The Staffordshire is named for the mining town in Britain where they were bred for pit fighting'"

It might be named for the county of Staffordshire, but it isn't certainly named for any mining town called 'Staffordshire' in Britain, because there isn't one. There is a town called Stafford which is the 'county town' of Staffordshire. - 94.194.113.136 (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

- Deadly attack by four Staffordshire Bull Terriers on a 3 year old child on May 22. 2010 in germany (german) http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article7742254/Dreijaehrige-von-Kampfhunden-regelrecht-zerfetzt.html

(They ripped her face apart and badly hurt her head and upper body. The dogs belonged to the girls aunt and knew the child.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.147.35 (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Dubious
I marked the claim about "special empathy for children" by the NZKC as dubious. There is no doubt that the breed is known for its affinity with humans, but to claim that the breed demonstrates "special empathy" without any kind of scientific source to back it is a bit much for an encyclopedia. It smacks of opinion rather than proven fact. Mfield (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

i agree with the above this whole page probably needs editing in the meantime i have removed the add on the the above sentence about "special empathy for children" that that is what they are most known for as this is obviously untrue, although on a personal level as an owner of a staff i think they are good with children i would never say that that is their chief claim to fame80.7.125.221 Mancgollum (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The owner not the dog generally determines the dog's tempremant. As a owner of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the mother of a 2 year old I can say from experience that my dog is great with children. This however is not true of a dog that is taught to fight it's entire life. Overall this breed can be a great addition to any family if properly trained and raised from a young age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.71.30 (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This has already been flagged in the referencing section. "The Staffordshire Bull Terrier appeared in the top 10 breeds most suitable for families and especially children in a report researched and published by Southampton University in 1996[4]." This publication actually gives this dog a high rating for aggression. One of the terms for aggression is 'snapping at children.' Surely this is misleading in the worst way possible? Why isn't it deleted yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.54.243 (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC) I will delete that part, and leave this message, just incase there is a good reason for it being kept there.

"Affinity With People" Rewritten
The section headed 'Affinity With People' is questionable:

"'Staffords are large-hearted and their way of showing that they love human beings does not express itself by a friendly wag of the tail and gentle lick of the tounge. This is a dog that will launch itself at visitors and even, when trained to be more controlled, will still be a fussy pet nudging and pawing the object of his affection in order to win a stroke and a pat in response. If you want a quiet reserved dog who knows his place and will wait to be asked to join in the game, then a stafford is not for you. It is recorded that fighting dogs often changed hands to settle debts or raise funds, but whatever the causes it is a well known fact that staffords are amazingly adaptable at changing home or even owners. Unfortunately, this does make them easy prey for dognappers from whom they will need protection. [14]"

"RSPCA chief vet Mark Evans said: 'Staffies have had a terrible press, but this is not of their own making - in fact they're wonderful dogs. If people think that Staffies have problems, they're looking at the wrong end of the dog lead! When well cared for and properly trained they can make brilliant companions. Our experience suggests that problems occur when bad owners exploit the Staffie's desire to please by training them to show aggression' [15].'"

I started out intending to tidy up the punctuation and spelling a little bit, but the more I read these two paragraphs the more doubtful I became. There is a reference for the claim made at the end of each paragraph (first that Staffordshires need protecting from dognappers, and second the quote from the RSPCA chap). Even so, the section reads as though it's a puff piece for the dogs, written by an obvious fan of the breed in a very casual and (in my view) unencyclopaedic style. 'Large-hearted' I can live with, just (if it's referenced); but in stating how they express their affection for humans, why start by telling the reader what they don't do? There's no need for that entire convoluted first sentence when we could just say "Staffords are very friendly towards humans and show their affection by jumping up, fussing, nudging and pawing", or some such.

Also, if something's a 'well-known fact' then it doesn't need to be in an encyclopaedia. If it does need to be in an encyclopaedia - i.e. it's notable and relevant and supported with proper references - then I don't think we should be telling the reader that it's a 'well-known fact', because it implies criticism of the reader if s/he didn't happen to know it.

Initially I wasn't going to try rewriting this section - I have to declare that I'm not at all a fan of this breed of dog. From experience I know that (whether by training or temperament) they can be extremely vicious and aggressive, and - although I recognise this isn't the dog's fault - they're the essential weapon-of-choice accessory for every wannabe in my district; so I admit I have quite a strong dislike for this breed. I'm hoping I've kept that sentiment out of my edits, though - but if anyone thinks they can improve on my fragile neutrality I'd urge them to try. Please, though, do try to keep it neutral: this is a descriptive article. It doesn't need to be a fancier's manual. - 94.194.113.136 (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC) You say that SBT's can be vicious and aggressive and your not a fan of the breed but your asking other people to be neutral?? ANY breed of dog can be vicious and aggressive,small breeds can be aggressive but are ignored or laughed at because of their size. SBT's are judged by their looks and i understand they can be intimidating but until you have owned this breed,trained this breed and helped people over come this instinct to fear them then you cannot give an honest opinion of their temprament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.231.246 (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

NP.O.V and weasel words
This article appears to be extremely one sided towards these dogs being 'friendly'. I do not know about this breed and therefore would not like to heavily delete sections that have been made probably with a lot of knowledge, but lack citations. I find it hard to ignore, however that the article lists 6 citations to attacks by the dogs in a single sentence, but has quotations about "No breed is more loving with its family" stated virtually as fact and the following sentence has to be considered original research.

"Bad Press" is a weasel phrase, since it instantly conjours up the idea of injustice. Also the statement about the dog not experiencing lock jaw unless they have tetanus doesn't make sense, because these two things are identical.

Over all it sounds like someone with a lot of knowledge for these dogs has edited this page in the past, but has let their feelings show too much. I think it wuold be better if someone with better knowledge than myself comes and irons out these points, but i will keep an eye on this article and start deleting the more obvious problems in a week unless people would like to come and make suggestions first. 79.121.197.4 (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just two quick points: The claim that "No breed is more loving with its family" is properly cited. Nothing wrong with educated opinions if they are properly cited. The phrase 'bad press' is based upon the RSPCA statement that the breed had a "terrible press". It seems perfectly appropriate. Yozzer66 (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Point taken on the Bad Press comment, I was a little harsh. But I still have doubts about the way that quote is used. I think it is a good quote and feel it could have a place in the article, but it needs to be presented clearly as opinion. I have some time tonight, so was intending to have a go at a larger edit of this article anyway, I'll see how it looks after that. 79.121.197.4 (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I second the NP.O.V. The Rottweiler article reflects much less bias and seems like a good example to follow.  It seems to me that, if someone was researching a dog to go to the dog park with, and they were learning about the breed, they should come away from this article thinking that this breed was a bad breed to own.  That is a common understanding.  This article directs the reader far away from that conclusion.  While these dogs may be people-friendly, they are not dog-friendly - they are dangerous to other dogs and to any people unlucky enough to get between the two during a scrum.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlprater (talk • contribs) 01:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Find me a WP:RS that says they are fundamentally not 'dog-friendly'. My SBT goes off-leash almost every week down the beach without incident. Because I have taken the time to socialise and train him. But unlike you instead of just a personal anecdote to back it up there is a source to cite as per the article:
 * 'RSPCA chief vet Mark Evans said: "Staffies have had a terrible press, but this is not of their own making - in fact they're wonderful dogs. If people think that Staffies have problems, they're looking at the wrong end of the dog lead! When well cared for and properly trained they can make brilliant companions. Our experience suggests that problems occur when bad owners exploit the Staffie's desire to please by training them to show aggression."'
 * - Oosh (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It may "be often said" that they are "nanny dogs", but that doesn't make it true. The term applied to this breed seems to be tracable to the application by the president of the breed association in the application to the kennel club, so how reliable is the claim? Something else that is often said is that it's a very bad idea to leave small children in the care of any dog, especially one so massively strong. I've been working on the article Fatal dog attacks in the United States and have seen now case after horrific case of a child left alone with a dog and ending up dead. Repeating this "nanny dog" claim here is a very bad idea, and especially so with a type of dog so dangerously strong and powerful. Chrisrus (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy to be able to agree with Chrisrus on this one. No truly reliable source will be encouraging anyone to leave a small child alone with a dog. For a lot of these dog articles, we need to move beyond using the media, political groups, and breed-specific advocates or breed-specific blamers as sources. I understand that the writers of this article are trying to fight against a lot of misled stereotypes. But that doesn't mean it's necessary to say things like "No breed is more loving with its family." If the point is to contradict the stereotype, a more appropriate statement (if properly sourced) would be something along the lines of "The SBT, like most breeds, tends to be loving with its family."Onefireuser (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Pictures
Stop removing newly added pictures to the article, please. Not to mention the motivation, 'this is not a place to add personal puppy pictures', now those pictures are not in any way my personal pictures. Not any of those pictures were. These are not MY pictures. I am not the author, se for yourself. And when you removed the pictures you removed one adult picture as well,  and left the article with only one puppy picture, by the way. The article can not possibly present a dog breed only with one breed pic in the lead, (black) and one PUPPY pic (black-blue as well). Please do not remove further pictures, we NEED more pictures. The other young dog was added mainly for its colour, white. Hafspajen (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You added a mix breed and another puppy with no explanation in the edit summary, so yeah I reverted the lot.
 * This latest lot are clearly part of a wider edit spree trying to illustrate a more diverse cross-section of the breed and I thank you for it.
 * If you can't complete you edit project in one sitting then you can try the template below, but always add an edit summary, we're not mind-readers. ;)
 * in use
 * -Oosh (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * MMMMmm, I realised that myself. The mixed breed pic. Took it away... Thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "
Press on bad behaviour===" ==

This section is original research, inaccurate and lacks NPOV.

First the title reflect the behavior of the press, yet the article points out speculation that breeders and owners are using the wrong breed name. Note no one is stating that the press is doing anything wrong.

Ex. It states '...the press have reported many cases of attacks by Staffordshire Bull Terriers or dogs described as a "Staffordshire bull terrier cross".' Then states  'The RSPCA fears that breeders are renaming pit bull terriers as Staffordshire bull terriers to avoid prosecution.'

The press is reporting the breed of the dog as registered by the breeders, kennel club, and owners. You can't blame the press for correctly reporting breed of the dog correctly. Additionally Austrlia is not a state, its a country and or continent.

Next the author writes "Several media, council and government reports in New South Wales (NSW) between 2002 and 2010 identified the Staffordshire bull terrier as the leading breed of dog responsible for biting humans... in that state of Australia."

The author sites an ABC (about Jack Russell Terriers) that accurately reports Stafforshire Bull Terriers were listed as the #1 attacker in a report from NSW for the period between October and December of 2009."  There is nothing about an 8 year period mentioned.  I guess the wiki author is upset that ABC would share information from the NSW government.

Next the author states "However, this is likely due to the sheer number of them in the community, with only a small percentage of the breed causing an issue." and sites a paper opposing BSL by "Dr Kersti Seksel" with information about dog attacks in 90's which describes alternatives to the 1998 BSL. The papper not a scientific article nor from a credible news organization. It was the opinion of one dog behaviorist on BSL andaggressive dogs in the '90s.

Lastly the author writes "A 2012 report places the American Staffordshire Bull Terrier 19th when dog attacks are weighted by breed population in NSW". The other sites Council Reports of Dog Attacks in NSW for 2010 and 2011. The report shows that of attacks by pure bred dogs Bull Terrier (Stafforshire) were #1 in dog attacks. There were no mention of American Staffordshire bull terriers. In the end none of that matters because its all original research and nothing to do with the press.

I will repeat this section is in-accurate, primary research and opinion. I will remove it for the betterment of Wikipedia. Mantion (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction with Pit Bull Terrier article - Are Staffy's Pits?
The lead mentions "It is an English breed of dog related to the bull terrier and its larger cousins the American Staffordshire terrier and the American pit bull terrier, the latter two being generally categorized as Pit bull terriers" without providing references for the exclusion of the Staffys from the Pit-categorization. Seeing as the sentence does communicate their close relation I would have thought they would be similarly grouped. The Pit Bull Terrier article also DOES include the Staffy's in the Pit group. I am being bold and removing the claim about categorization until clear evidence can be provided either way. - Sahmejil (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article to which you are referring was not "Pit Bull Terrier" but "Pit Bull". The Pit Bull article follows the convention established by numerous legal definitions (see the Breed-specific legislation article for examples) that include the Staffordshire Bull Terrier in the definition of a "pit bull-type dog". Astro$01 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes Staffordshire Bull Terriers are definitely pits. A pitbull is a type of dog like a retriever. There are many breeds and mixes of dogs considered retrievers. There are also many breeds and mixes of dogs that are pitbulls. Some people think that because a there is a breed called "american pit bull terrier" that those are the only pit bulls. Again this is not true, pit bull is a generic term to describe a group of dogs with similar traits. Any expert on dog breeds will support this fact.Mantion (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This information is currently being whitewashed from the article. I just added a brief mention in the introduction, with references, and it was removed.  I understand that many people have negative associations with the term "pit bull" and that people who love their Staffies want to keep their distance from that term, but it seems clear to me that the relationship is real and worth mentioning.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not being whitewashed, it's simply incorrect, neither of the sources provided support your contention. This change is contested, there is no consensus, so it must go per WP:BRD. -Oosh (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This reference says that "even experts can't always tell if a Pit Bull is an APBT, an AST or a SBT." Here we have APBT, AST, and SBT spoken of as three varieties of Pit Bull, and nearly indistinguishable varieties at that.  This reference points out that the breeds "most commonly included" in legislation intended to ban Pit Bulls are BTs, ASTs, and SBTs.  Other breeds that are also "also frequently included" in legislation but that are not Pit Bulls are mentioned not in this sentence but in the following sentence.
 * You've now made the claim several times that SBTs are not Pit Bulls, but you have never offered any evidence other than your own word for the claim. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your first reference says it's a mistake to call them pitbulls. Your other reference is about BSL, not whether or not SBTs are pitbulls, again it plays in to the mistaken identity. So very sources you seek to use actually re-enforce my argument. I don't deny some ignorant people call them "pitbulls", but that fact doesn't warrant mention in the lead, to do so is affording it WP:UNDUE weight. -Oosh (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The "mistakenly referred to" line is a bit unclear, but I think its point is that a purebred should be called by the name of its breed and not by the broader term "pit bull." If it means that "pit bull" is in fact an improper name for a SBT, then the article contradicts itself because it uses the word in just such a way a few paragraphs later (the part I originally cited).  Yes, the second reference is about BSL, but nevertheless it speaks of pitbull-type breeds separately from other breeds, as I already mentioned.
 * You continue to cite not a single reference to support your position in a positive way, but instead simply try to tear down the references that I cite, and that not convincingly.
 * By the way, please do not refer to your debating opponents as "ignorant". Thank you, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A week and no reply to my last. Here are two more sources:
 * "There is no breed with the name 'Pit Bull.' When that term is used, it’s usually referring to either American Staffordshire Terriers or American Pit Bull Terriers, and sometimes to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier"
 * VCA Animal Hospitals simply refers to ASTs as pit bulls, illustrating that "pit bull" is a family of breeds and is not limited to the APBT.
 * I'll be changing the article back, unless there is a cogent reply. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081229112223/http://www.vetstreamcanis.co.uk:80/%5Ccorporate%5Chtml%5CBreed-relatedcancer%5CBreed-relatedcancer.htm to http://www.vetstreamcanis.co.uk/%5Ccorporate%5Chtml%5CBreed-relatedcancer%5CBreed-relatedcancer.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality of this article
It is disappointing that an article on such an important breed has been around since 2004 but has not preceded beyond Start Class on the quality scale. There is need for either:
 * 1) citations to be provided, especially under the history section (which appears to be based on myth and legend emanating from breed clubs with little evidence or support)
 * 2) else, pruned severely to allow others to add new, cited material.

I have removed 3 poor citations that attempts to link this breed to the pit-bull (American Pit Bull Terrier):
 * 1) A definition provided by a website that is of questionable quality - there is no cited research, just conjecture.
 * 2) A definition that states that it is about the American Staffordshire Terrier, not the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
 * 3) A definition from a court decision in Denver that should not be generalized to hold sway over the entire English-speaking world. There are decisions in other English-speaking jurisdictions that take a different approach. (The breed transcends national borders, unless we are going to put that in the scope at the beginning of the article and say that this article is just about staffies in the USA.)

Shortly, someone will put these citations back, which once again calls into question the quality of this article. The page counter tells me that there are 115 people who are interested enough to WATCH this page - and I suggest that it is long past time for them to do a little less watching and do a little more research and editing. Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   06:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi William. I really do sympathize with lovers of staffies who do not want their dogs to be associated with the stereotype of a vicious pit bull.  However, the remedy should be to dispel the stereotype and to help the public realize that pit bulls are often very good dogs, not to deny (what seems to me) the manifestly true statement that staffies are a form of pit bull.


 * To take your three points in order:
 * I suppose we can have a discussion of whether Pit Bull Rescue Central is a reliable source. These people are hardly ignorant, and they are not even hostile to pit bull-type dogs.  Although they do not source their statements, that does not mean that their statements are conjecture.  The question is not one of research, but about what particular words mean and how they are used "on the ground."
 * Please note the word "as" in the parenthetical that references AmStaffs. It indicates that AmStaffs are being used here as an example and invalidates your interpretation that the definition is meant to be restricted to AmStaffs.  The latter would be absurd, as APBTs should clearly be included.  The point is that "pit bull" is a term that is properly applied to "any of several breeds" that are all related to each other.  I don't think there can be any question that the SBT is one of those breeds.
 * Although it's true that this definition is most strictly applied to the jurisdiction of Denver County, it is hardly unusual or atypical, and is thus a useful example to cite. If you can cite legal definitions that state SBTs are not pit bulls, I would be interested to see that.
 * Here are two more prospective sources:
 * I hope you will agree that the ASPCA is a reliable source. This page has generally helpful information in its main body, but the page description, which is visible if you find the page on Google or if you look for it in the page source, says that "The term 'pit bull' is often misunderstood, because it does not apply to just one breed of dog," again making the point that "pit bull" is a breed type and not a specific breed.  And what breeds would fall into that type if not the SBT?
 * The book I'm a Good Dog: Pit Bulls, America's Most Beautiful (and Misunderstood) Dog by Ken Foster contains the following quote: "For some lovers of the American pit bull terrier... 'pit bull' is embraced as shorthand for their breed.  However, fans of the American Staffordshire terrier and English Staffordshire terrier are usually quick to tell you that their breeds are not pit bulls.  To the general public, all three dogs are perceived as pit bulls, along with variations of the American bulldog, bull terriers, bullmastiffs, and even boxers, as well as mixes of these breeds."  This highlights the fact that staffie lovers (such as yourself, I infer) do not like to be associated with the term "pit bull," but that such an association is in fact the basis for how people generally use the word.  And if that is not how we determine what a word means, I don't know what is.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your considered response, your time here is appreciated by me. I am not a staffie-lover but I have never met a staffie that I did not like, and they always liked me. The breed is both popular and important, and deserves a bit better than what we currently offer here.


 * This is the English-speaking version of Wikipedia, and the English-speakers include more than the USA and Canada. The term pit bull is almost unknown in the other 3 Five Eyes English-speaking nations. In the UK the regulations on "Identifying Pit Bull Terrier (PBT) types" gives the APBT breed standard (http://www.doglaw.co.uk/pitbull.php and https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69263/dogs-guide-enforcers.pdf). In Australia the term "Pit Bull Terrier or American Pit Bull" are used interchangeably (http://www.agriculture.gov.au/cats-dogs/frequently-asked-questions?wasRedirectedByModule=true#what-dog-breeds-cannot-be-imported-into-australia). In New Zealand the term "American Pit Bull Terrier type dogs" is used (http://www.dogsafety.govt.nz/Dog-Owners-Legal-Responsibilities-Index). These 3 nations ban the import of the APBT but have no issue with the other breeds mentioned in the article. Therefore, the citations quoted in the article on what is "a pit bull type" appears to be applicable to the USA and Canada only. If you reinstate the citations, then I suggest that you also include "in North America" in the sentence.


 * Regard my edits and rant as a "call-to-arms" to staffie editors, so to speak. I would raise the level on the Quality Scale of this article, but some work is first necessary by its keepers. Regarding the "Appearance" section, the first para has no inline citation. The second para has citation (3). That is possibly the citation for both - someone needs to check it, cite it or correct it. The same with "History" - we have 4 paragraphs with no inline-citations but para 5 uses citation (5), which might be for all of them - someone needs to check it, cite it or correct it. There are only a few little hurdles holding this article back. Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   08:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The British websites do not say that SBTs would not be classified as pit bull-type dogs. It gives the breed standard for the APBT as the criteria for judging whether a dog is a pit bull-type, but my understanding is that SBTs and APBTs are so similar in physiology that it may well be that SBTs would match the description.
 * The Australian and New Zealand websites say nothing about the question at hand. The law in those countries considers APBTs as being more dangerous than other breeds in the pit bull family, but that does not mean that other breeds are not part of the pit bull family.
 * Reading again the History section of this article as it now stands, it seems abundantly clear that SBTs are descended from bull-type dogs that fought in pits. It may well be that SBTs have since been carefully bred to not have the temperament of a fighting dog, but that does not mean that they aren't pit bulls, any more than (hypothetically) a modern Golden Retriever's lack of birding instinct would mean it isn't a retriever.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706124054/http://www.ankc.org.au/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=71 to http://www.ankc.org.au/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=71
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fci.be/uploaded_files/076gb98_en.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031105035003/http://www.nzkc.org.nz/br280.html to http://www.nzkc.org.nz/br280.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070306152038/http://mail.ukcdogs.com/UKCweb.nsf/80de88211ee3f2dc8525703f004ccb1e/dd9391625058cc238525704d006966a7?OpenDocument to http://mail.ukcdogs.com/UKCweb.nsf/80de88211ee3f2dc8525703f004ccb1e/dd9391625058cc238525704d006966a7?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion
Request received to merge articles: Irish Bull Terrier into Staffordshire Bull Terrier; dated: November 2018. Proposer's Rationale: Irish Bull Terrier aka Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier should be merged here (or possibly create a redirect and add a paragraph explaining the crux of this 2002 article published in Telegraph - or maybe a speedy would be appropriate. It's a fictitious breed, has no recognized breed registry or any RS that either verifies such a breed exists or passes WP:GNG. Atsme ✍🏻📧 19:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * NOTE: I've posted notice of this discussion on WikiProject Dogs. Atsme ✍🏻📧 19:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * NOTE 2: I posted notice of this discussion to several involved editors who have edited one or both of the involved articles from September forward. Atsme ✍🏻📧 22:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No merger: The Irish Bull Terrier is a separate breed and deserves it's own article. The merger banner should be removed immediately. IQ125 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well IQ125, this isn't an RfC that requires an iVote, it's a discussion. The RSPCA] does [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1396088/Trade-in-Irish-pit-bulls-flouts-dog-law.html not recognize the "Irish" variety as a breed, so what RS can you provide to verify it as a breed? Please add at least 2 . Thank you. Atsme ✍🏻📧 23:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * IQ125's claims are directly refuted by the article's own text (or, rather, by the sources it cites). It is not a breed at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * SMcCandlish was just deleted my citations from a book and the information that came from the book that was in the article. I would ask him to put the information back with the citations. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia! IQ125 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I did nothing of the sort; you're blaming the wrong editor. However, your mass-revert clobbered EVERY recent edit by everyone at that page, and even stripped out the merge tag. Please be more careful. I've undone your mass-revert and re-inserted your source and the details from it.  (A  to whoever did delete that; you be more careful, too, please.)  Also did some citation cleanup. PS: The source in question doesn't establish this as a breed, either. The fact that the dogs exist and have been used for fighting and ratting isn't disputed by anyone. This just isn't a distinct enough population – especially as mongrelized cross-breed – to warrant a stand-alone article. We do have some articles on cross-breeds, like Labradoodle, but only because they have an overwhelming amount of secondary-source material written about them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was the editor who deleted them. The book is an unreliable source, in limited print by a non-notable author, and is obviously self-published by a marketing firm., did you author that book or know the person who did? Atsme ✍🏻📧 14:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, are we talking about the same source? The TFH Publications I know of is a major publisher of high-quality breeding and pet-keeping works; their reptile and amphibian encyclopedia is arguably the best in the world.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I was referring to Barker, Shaun (2000). Staffordshire Bull Terriers (English and Irish). Northbrook Publishing. ISBN 978-1857362428. Diff. The edits & reverts became confusing. Atsme ✍🏻📧 21:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah! Okay. Well, at some point, someone nuke the ref to the TFH source, and I restored that one (cited twice, including in the lead). I don't care who did it. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support merge This is some sort of bloodline group or even a hybrid. I see no reliable sources backing up this critter as a legitimate breed. I see similar issues in the horse breed articles where someone has a crossbred or a bloodline group that they want to spin off as a content fork.  I say merge this back to the main article; it's worth maybe a paragraph or so there.  Maybe.   Montanabw (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge The "Irish Bull Terrier" is not recognised by any kennel club organisation. Gareth Griffith&#8209;Jones&#160;The Welsh Buzzard 11:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Clearly imaginary. ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge. While there are sources, what they come down to is that this isn't a breed, or a population, or a variety, or a sub-breed, but is a nomenclatural shell-game being used to evade pit-bull-related laws. This is clearly a good sub-section for the main article, though.  It's just not an encyclopedic topic in its own right.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge Seems to be a sub breed, not not nearly enough to warrant its own article.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge not a stand alone breed but a line of the Staffie. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC).
 * Support merge Not a recognized breed and we should not support any dog breeder marketing promotionalism. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge - formally as nom. Atsme ✍🏻📧 15:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge in principle, in that it seems that this isn't in no way a distinct breed and is unworthy of an article. That said, I'm not so sure about the target. It seems that the folks selling these dogs are claiming that they're an already established branch of the bull and terrier mixes from Ireland that are closely related to the English Staffordshire Bull Terrier (SBT). But it also seems like that's a load of bunk designed to get around the UK's ban on American Pit Bull Terriers (APBT). and that these dogs are actually just a lineage of APBTs that may have some SBT (and/or American Staffordshire Terrier (AST)) lineage as well. (I'm not going to get into the worthlessness and prejudicial nature of breed specific legislation, or how pointless and dumb it is that the UK's version doesn't ban the substantially similar domestic breed.)
 * Indeed, there's a good chance that these are just general mutts crossing multiple breeds of the pit bull type. As such, I think the target is not the best choice, as merging to the SBT article specifically would only reinforce the misidentification of these dogs. There's actually very little of the article worth saving, other than a minor mention that some have taken to using spurious claims to sell dogs of the pit bull type in the UK, which can actually best be covered in the section of the pit bull article on breed specific legislation. So that is where I would merge it, not the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article. oknazevad (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No Merger Are two AMAZON books https://www.amazon.co.uk/Staffordshire-Terriers-English-Canine-Library/dp/185736242X/ref=sr_1_1?ie= and https://www.amazon.com/Irish-Staffordshire-Bull-Terrier-Guide/dp/1526907267 other unreliable sources ? Dr Nobody (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Dr Nobody - please post your question at WP:RSN but be prepared to verify that each book was authored by a credible author and not just a breed enthusiast, that the books were not self-published and contain verifiable information based on the credibility of their cited sources. In other words, if they cite WP as a source, that's a big no-no. Also, refer back to my suggestions on your TP. Atsme ✍🏻📧 16:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"Irish" Staffordshire section
, I would like to propose new wording for the above section:

In the United Kingdom American Pit Bull Terriers are sometimes advertised as "Irish" Staffordshire Bull Terriers in an attempt to circumvent the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The appearance of the Irish Staffordshire, which is not recognised by any kennel club or breed registry, is attributed by the RSPCA to be contributing "to a rise in incidents of dog fighting", the editor of Dogs Today magazine described the breed as "complete fiction".

Bearing in mind the breed-specific legislation section already includes the first sentence above and talks about the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, I feel this new wording deals with all of the information without placing too much weight on topic with a single source. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC).


 * The merge was quite an uphill endeavor which is one of the reasons I was specific about not a breed, etc. I have no objection to your version. Atsme Talk 📧 22:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019: Staffie as a pit bull
Hello, do you not feel the breed specific legislation section places WP:UNDUE weight on a subject that does not even pertain to this breed in the only jurisdiction mentioned? Also the Irish Staffie section given the sources state it is a euphemism for American Pit Bull Terrier?

Additionally, your edit reverted attempts to correct the spelling, the Use British English template has been on this article since 2013, wholly fair for a British subject.

Further, can I suggest you read MOS:SEEALSO, it advises against the "See also" section repeating links that appear in the article's navigation boxes. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC).


 * And further still, your contention that the Staffie can be considered a pit bull is clearly far from universal, British law prohibits such dogs and the Staffie is very much legal within Britain. If that reference is to be retained, it should be removed from the lead section as it is not an accurate summary of the breed, but a regional interpretation. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC).


 * I apologize for not checking my edit more carefully. My only intention was to restore the sourced content to the lead section.  The changes to the rest of the article were unintentional.
 * Your link labeled "British law" is not relevant. That law prohibits dogs "known as the pit bull terrier," so it does not apply to the Staffie but rather to the APBT.  To say that the Staffie is part of the pit bull family is not to say that it is dangerous, nor that it is or should be prohibited.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

, the Staffie is only defined as a pit bull within some North American juristictions, nowhere else (the closest I can find in a non-North American publication is the "Bull and Terrier, sometimes referred to as the 'Pit Dog'." ). Further, not all of the references you keep including back up your statement, and all of those that do are American.

Looking at the page's history you added this statement on 2 Jun 15, since then multiple editors have tried to remove it and it has only been you that has consistently replaced it (5 Jun 15, 15 Jun 15, 25 Jun 15, 6 Jul 15, 12 Jul 15, 14 Jul 15, 28 Aug 15, 17 Sep 15, 24 Sep 15, 26 Oct 15, 19 Jul 16, 21 May 18, 19 Jul 18, 13 Mar 19, 20 Mar 19 and again today).

This does not belong in the article's lead (MOS:LEAD states "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight"), to do so is WP:UNDUE. Instead it belongs in the article's body, and it is there. Regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC).
 * Concur 100%. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I also support removal from the lead per UNDUE; adding that I restored the paragraph (Irish Staffordshire) resulting from the 22 November 2018 merge per consensus as noted in the TP banner. Atsme Talk 📧 13:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This topic was discussed at some length in 2015. I hope and trust that all who have registered their opinions so far (that is,  and  as well as yourself) will read the discussions at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/Archive 1 and Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/Archive 1, and will then let us know whether they retain the same views, and if so how they would argue against the points that were made in the past.

When people remove consensus information they don't like from an article, without making any coherent argument for doing so, it is perfectly in keeping with WP policy to revert their edits. Of course, we are now having a discussion, so this incidence does not fall under that description. I mention this in order to explain the past actions of mine that you have pointed out.

To summarize the argument, legal definitions are not important here, but rather the heritage of the breed. It seems abundantly clear that SBTs are descended from bull-type dogs that fought in pits. It may well be that SBTs have since been carefully bred to not have the temperament of a fighting dog, but that does not mean that they aren't pit bulls, any more than (hypothetically) a modern Golden Retriever's lack of birding instinct would mean it isn't a retriever. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are more highlights from the previous discussion:
 * I really do sympathize with lovers of staffies who do not want their dogs to be associated with the stereotype of a vicious pit bull. However, the remedy should be to dispel the stereotype and to help the public realize that pit bulls are often very good dogs, not to deny (what seems to me) the manifestly true statement that staffies are a form of pit bull.
 * The book I'm a Good Dog: Pit Bulls, America's Most Beautiful (and Misunderstood) Dog by Ken Foster contains the following quote: "For some lovers of the American pit bull terrier... 'pit bull' is embraced as shorthand for their breed.  However, fans of the American Staffordshire terrier and English Staffordshire terrier are usually quick to tell you that their breeds are not pit bulls.  To the general public, all three dogs are perceived as pit bulls, along with variations of the American bulldog, bull terriers, bullmastiffs, and even boxers, as well as mixes of these breeds."  This highlights the fact that staffie lovers (such as yourself, I infer) do not like to be associated with the term "pit bull," but that such an association is in fact the basis for how people generally use the word.  And if that is not how we determine what a word means, I don't know what is.

Argument by assertion (which is what I've seen so far in this discussion) does not stand up against citations to reliable sources (which I've provided). Furthermore, a single sentence in the lead section is hardly WP:Undue Weight. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it raises justifiable concern when we are faced with relentless insistence to identify the fighting dog ancestry of Staffordshire Bull Terriers with modern day pit bulls, especially in the lead, and that is venturing into WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT territory. The lead does not eliminate the breed's ancestry - it specifically mentions that it is a descendant of 19th century fighting dogs, which is accurate and compliant with DUE. What carries far more WEIGHT is not its ancestry; rather, it's what the breed registries accept as the breed standard per this AKC article (my bold underline for emphasis): "From his brawling past, the muscular but agile Staffordshire Bull Terrier retains the traits of courage and tenacity. Happily, good breeding transformed this former gladiator into a mild, playful companion with a special feel for kids." Pit bull is a type of dog, not a breed and we should not conflate them. Dog Time states "...but he is a breed unto himself with distinct physical characteristics that set him apart, including size and ear shape." This Animal Planet states: ...a dog originally bred for fighting to be so wonderful with kids, but the Staffordshire Bull Terrier really is. RS describe the dog as a terrier, not a pit bull. Atsme Talk 📧 19:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , devoting one of three sentences in the lead to a regionally specific classification is 100% UNDUE. Your new reference (which has not been introduced before now) simply affirms that this is a term used within North America.


 * No one here is arguning that it should not be included in the article, and it is included, but it should not be included in the lead as does not "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight". Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC).


 * I am shocked that you accuse me of intransigence when we have hardly even begun to exchange our views. What you just wrote is the first move towards engagement between our views that I've seen so far, and it comes paired with a stated assumption of bad faith.  Wow.
 * If you look through the past edits that you meticulously compiled, you'll see that I'm a Good Dog was long a cited source in this article. It does appear to have fallen by the wayside during the periodic edit warring instigated over the years by people who popped up and removed this content for little stated reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  This sneaky edit appears to be the culprit.
 * Your argument that we should discount reliable sources simply because I (an American) am citing mostly sources from America is hard to swallow. A reliable source is a reliable source.  The fact that some reliable sources do not mention the identification of SBTs as pit bulls (but don't contradict it) does not invalidate reliable sources. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , as I have said repeatedly, no-one is saying it should be excluded entirely, but to include it in the lead is UNDUE, it is not a broadly held classification for this breed but a regional grouping. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC).
 * The current wording mentions pit bulls only in the context of breed-specific legislation, which entirely misses the point. We are talking about what kinds of dogs these are, on a more fundamental level.
 * Let's review the sources that I originally submitted in 2015 (it appears that one was removed and two others were added since that time without my notice, but as you've pointed out, the additional sources are not very relevant):
 * Merriam-Webster defines "pit bull" as "a dog... of any of several breeds... that was originally developed for fighting and is noted for strength, stamina, and tenacity" (wording slightly updated from what was cited in 2015). This clearly applies to SBTs, and this alone should put the onus on you to find sources denying that SBTs are pit bulls, and not just to rely on a perceived paucity or regionality of sources that say they are.
 * A court in Colorado defined a "pit bull" as a dog of several breeds including SBTs. Please note that this is a statement about what is and isn't a pit bull, not specifically about whether there should be restrictions on this type of dog
 * No less an authoritative (and dog-friendly) source than the ASPCA declares that the "pit bull class of dogs" includes the SBT. Here again, the wording here is clearly a declaration regarding what the ASPCA considers to be a pit bull, even though the purpose is to argue against BSL.
 * The book I'm a Good Dog, which meets the WP:RS criteria for published material, declares that pit bulls are generally considered to denote a group of breeds including SBTs.
 * Not until posted yesterday have any sources been offered to support the opposing viewpoint.  All three of Atsme's sources  reference the dog's fighting origin but don't use the term "pit bull."  This does not amount to a declaration that SBTs are not pit bulls, just a decision not to mention the fact.  Atsme remarks here that "Pit bull is a type of dog, not a breed and we should not conflate them."  That is exactly the point I am making!
 * --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , the opposing viewpoint is yours alone at this point. 3 editors have disagreed with your position. I stand by what I said yesterday. You still haven't dropped the stick, so your comment about being shocked over what you referred to as an allegation of intransigence is, in retrospect, no longer an allegation. You have provided supporting evidence by refusing to accept local consensus. If you want wider community input, then by all means, call an RfC and be done with it. I will gladly accept whatever is agreed to by a wider consensus.   <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 18:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia is not a vote. Three people who say I don't like it is no reason for someone with reasonable and well-sourced arguments to stand down.  Only very recently have you and your compatriots started to say something more substantial than "I don't like it," and I am attending to that.  The aspersions you are casting are inappropriate and against the spirit of Wikipedia.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

, you calling everyone with a different point of view to your own “lovers of staffies who do not want their dogs to be associated with the stereotype of a vicious pit bull” is casting aspersions. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC).

British Commonwealth definitions
, let’s go through this again: Again, the classification of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a pit bull is restricted to North America, the article reflects this and the lead very definitely should not. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC).
 * Within Britain:
 * British law prohibits “any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier”
 * the Oxford dictionary defines the Pit bull (including the synonym of Pit bull terrier) as “a dog of an American variety of bull terrier, noted for its ferocity.”
 * the Cambridge dictionary defines the Pit bull terrier (including the synonym of Pit bull) as “a type of dog that is often considered to be aggressive and is used for fighting other dogs as entertainment.” It further clarified that in American English it is “a type of small dog with a wide chest and short hair, known for its strength and sometimes trained to fight.”
 * again, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is very much legal within Britain
 * ∴ within Britain the classification of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a pit bull is incorrect
 * Within Australia:
 * New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria all restrict ownership of the American Pit Bull Terrier (and all include the synonym of Pit Bull Terrier)
 * the Macquarie dictionary defines the Pit bull terrier (including the synonym of “Pit Bull”) as “a stocky strong muscular dog with a short stiff coat usually of fawn and white colouring, originally bred for hunting and dog-fighting and widely regarded as aggressive and dangerous”
 * none of them restrict ownership of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier
 * ∴ within Australia the classification of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a pit bull is incorrect
 * , I don't know what you mean by "again." This is the first time that anybody has made this argument with anything resembling this level of careful sourcing.  Up to now, I have seen nothing but your bare assertion that we are dealing with a regional variation, but now I see some evidence.  Let me consider and come back to you.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the legal restrictions have always been beside the point, in my opinion. "Pit bull terrier" can be taken as a synonym for the APBT, so of course everyone agrees that bans on such a dog does not apply to SBTs.  It's the dictionaries you've just cited that are of interest to me.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are the one who continues to use the Colorado legal definition as an example. Here’s another for you, the Collins COBUILD dictionary gives a definition for pit bull as “A pit bull terrier or a pit bull is a very fierce kind of dog. Some people train pit bull terriers to fight other dogs. It is illegal to own one in the UK.” Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC).
 * And another from the Chambers dictionary, “pit bull terrier noun a large breed of bull terrier, originally developed for dogfighting. Often shortened to pit bull.” Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC).

Main image
I think a more illustrative main image is needed. This current image is not very illustrative, the dog has his back to the camera. I recommend this ones below (or similars). Adventurous36 (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Not to be confused with...
I think the Template message below needs a complement Adventurous36 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC) My suggestion: Adventurous36 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Potential GA
Notice to the most recent article watchers -, , - just letting you know that I'll be copy editing, and making some updates/additions/clarifications to the article today so don't be concerned about the activity. I will add an "in use" template on the page, and ask that while the template is up, please wait until I've removed it before you make any edits, and if you have any concerns, let's please discuss it here on the TP. I would like to prime this article as a potential GA and possibly DYK so whoever wants to get involved in either or both of the processes let me know. Happy editing! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 14:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: I just tweaked the lead, and will work on the History section later, so if after you proof-read it, and find any discrepencies, etc., please discuss it here. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 19:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

History section
Sorry to throw a spammer in the works but I am very worried the history section is becoming horribly confused and misguided, in part because the AKC website is (against all other sources) mistaken about the origins of the breed.

There is no context here, it needs to talk about the rise in popularity of dog fighting over bull baiting and the corresponding development of the lighter Bull and Terrier from the Old English Bulldog before describing the 1835 act.
 * Early protection

Hinks is horribly misrepresented as the creator of this breed. All of the sources (literally every one) less the AKC website reflect this.
 * James Hinks

James Hinks developed the Bull Terrier by crossing the Bull and Terrier with the English White Terrier (later other breeds were added) whilst the original (uncrossed) type was maintained in the Black Country, these became the modern Staffie. Hinks does not deserve his own own subsection in this article, just a mention, and the AKC website should be discounted as a credible source on the breed’s history.

I know it sounds pompous but I much prefer my version of the history of the breed. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC).


 * I thoroughly researched the history, CM. Everything stated in the current History section is cited and verifiable. What part are you disputing? It is doubtful that the KC would misrepresent Hinks, and they refer to him as the founder, and so does AKC, the largest purebred breed registry in the world. Looking at the this revision, I'm not seeing what you're challenging. To begin, history that goes back to the early 1800s has little if any direct genetic affect on a 21st century descendant, especially considering the outcrosses that created the Staffie. Furthermore, there are other books and sources in addition to both KC and AKC, such as this history, and the references included in the WP article, James Hinks. As for pit fighting dogs, we have Dog fighting. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 14:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The KC page states “When the founder of the Bull Terrier (bolding mine) James Hinks added other breeds like the Collie to change the head shape of that breed, devotees of the original type of bull terrier cross remained loyal to their preferred type.” The CKC and UKC make no mention of Hinks whilst the ANKC and NZKC make the distinction of Hinks being the creator of the Bull Terrier, not the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have cited with in-text attribution what RS say. Perhaps you are not fully understanding the outcrossing and changes in the shape of the body and head that has been credited to Hinks? Yes, he founded the Bull Terrier, but he also modified the appearance of that breed when he outcrossed to the other breeds. The devotees to the Bull Terrier foundation lines and appearance stuck with it whereas Hinks kept developing what we know now as the Staffie. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 16:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect, that is not what th majority of the RS state, they state Hinks crossed the progenitors of the Staffie with the English White Terrier to create the modern Bull Terrier. It is worthy of inclusion only to explain the difference (fork) between breeds. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , with respect I do not think this has been satisfactorily addressed, at the moment the KC is being misattributed on the involvement of Hinks, and we are using a single source against every other RS. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC).
 * Please be more specific - it would prove helpful if you will quote the part that is misattributed, and maybe suggest what you think it should say. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 19:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have above, the KC does not attribute Hinks with any involvement with the Staffordshire, only the Bull Terrier. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What I wrote and attributed to both AKC & KC: James Hinks is credited for perfecting the foundation bloodlines of bull terriers that led to the modern Staffie. What is misattributed, CM? I'm not understanding the issue here. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 20:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not what the KC website says, they say Hinks crosses Bull and Terriers to create the Bull Terrier, not that he had any influence over the modern Staffordshire. The AKC is the only source that makes this claim, against every other KC and RS. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC).
 * I'm sure all the breed registries are citing Hinks as a way to distance the breed from its dog fighting heritage with Mallen et al in the 1930's. Maybe the evidence to that truth is that Birmingham (Hinks) is in neither Staffordshire OR Black Country. However, it was Mallen et al who accomplished getting the breed into the registries, all the while continuing with their dog fighting. Ironic, but real history. — Nomopbs (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Only one breed registry claims Hinks had any influence over the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the AKC. The KC, the ANKC and the NZKC all mention Hinks as the creator of the Bull Terrier only, and they do so to explain the distinction between and separation point of the two breeds. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC).

CM, I think the most important bit of information you may be overlooking is the fact that (the first name requested, "Original Bull Terrier", was rejected by the Kennel Club). I've spent the better part of the weekend researching Hinks and his contribution to what laid the foundation for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and I am convinced AKC has the history correct. It is easily verifiable in historic paintings of the Hicks' dogs, which are far more representative of the modern Staffie than the modern Bull Terrier, which explains what the KC meant when they said "When the founder of the Bull Terrier James Hinks added other breeds like the Collie to change the head shape of that breed, devotees of the original type of bull terrier cross remained loyal to their preferred type." The latter is what led to the egg shaped head of the modern Bull Terrier. Hinks' bloodline is what perfected the very foundation of the breed that was named the Staffordshire Bull Terrier after the KC rejected "Original Bull Terrier".

There is also the book The Bull Terrier - A Compete Anthology of the Dog - 1850-1940, Vintage Dog Books 2010 - ISBN 978-14455-2700-0 and 978-14455-2809-0 wherein it states: The Pure White Bull Terrier was standardized many years ago by the late Mr. James Hinks, of Birmingham, and has now been bred to a high state of perfection. It was the blending of these two, the Pure White and the Staffordshire, that produced the modern Coloured Bull Terrier. The breeder’s ideal is a good dog as good in type and quality as the best Pure White, but with the Coloured coat of the Staffordshire. To do this, the best Staffordshire available were mated to the finest Pure Whites. The results were an immediate improvement in type. Again, the most typical specimen was selected, and again mated to a quality dog, and so on. But it was not a fast improvement, as breeders had continually to return to the Staffordshire for the desired colour, so losing a little of the type already gained.

Hinks Bull Terriers - in this book, it clearly states that Hicks wanted a "gentleman's companion, not a pit fighter"; therefore, he infused the bloodlines of dogs with the temperament and genetic qualities he sought - that's what successful breeders do. ...mid 19th century Hinks started crossing existing bull and terriers with his white bulldog…mixed in other dog breeds. Result - white dog with better legs and a nicer head. They were called Hinks breed and the White Cavalier but no egg-shaped head. Hinks wanted a gentleman’s companion, not a pit fighter. It is believed Dalmation blood was added for elegance, and then borzoi and collie blood added to elongate the head and reduce the stop.

The information presented by the AKC is corroborated in various books and online breed organizations that are preserving the history of the bull terrier lineage: The Bull Terrier was introduced by James Hinks of Birmingham, who had been experimenting for several years with the old bull-and-terrier dog, now known as Staffordshire. It is generally conceded that he used the Staffordshire, crossed with the white English Terrier, and some writers contend that a dash of Pointer and Dalmatian blood was also used to help perfect the all-white Bull Terrier.

Dogs in Canada April 2008 - pg 54 - By the 1860s, dog fanciers and writers were noticing that Hinks was breeding a new type of Bull Terrier, eliminating many of the Bulldog’s undesirable physical characteristics while preserving its courage. He added ‘nobility’ – a longer neck, head and legs. It’s said that he used the Dalmatian to strengthen general appearance and the Greyhound for longer legs. To this day there are four types in Bull Terriers: a terrier type, Dalmatian type and Bulldog type, and a middle-of-the-road type that’s considered the ideal type by experts, having just enough of the three other types to be a good Bull Terrier.

pg 55 - Hinks disappeared from the dog scene around 1870, but the mark he left on the breed is huge. His creation is familiar all over the world and his first dogs – Old Madman, Madman and Puss – are regarded as the start of the Bull Terrier. As for all the breeds Hinks used for his creation, the mystery is only partly resolved. And it goes on to read, In the 1930s, when he was over 80 years old, James Hinks II wrote an article for the American magazine Dogdom. In it he stated that his father had used a Dalmatian, a Bulldog and White English Terriers to create the breed. How he created a breed, can be read in Kevin Kane’s book: “... in the fact that he created, what was basically a mongrel and presented it to an unsuspecting world as The Bull Terrier. The judges of the day showed a preference for his strain of Bull Terrier.”

Staffords online The Staffordshire Bull Terrier was originally known as the Bull  and Terrier and was later (incorrectly) changed to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier to distinguish between more readily available and not necessarily as pure breeds of the Bull Terrier. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is an English breed of dog.

, are you monitoring this TP? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 23:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll let this discussion settle, and then figure out what to do about this and the earlier discussion above (which the other editors seem to have left). FunkMonk (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your very detailed response. Everything you have quoted above is the history of the Bull Terrier (the modern breed), not the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and all supports what I am saying. The Bull Terrier was created by Hinks by breeding Bull and Terriers (what later became Staffies) with English White Terriers (and later Collies / Dalmations etc). From memory the all white Bull Terriers always suffered from health problems so later breeders reintroduced Staffie blood to reinvigorate the breed and add some colour.
 * The Bull Terrier was officially recognised by the KC well before the Staffie, so in the 1930s when KC recognition was sought by the breeders of the Staffie, the name Bull Terrier was unavailable and they applied for Original Bull Terrier, when that was rejected they settled on Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC).
 * Bull Terrier actually says what have just said above. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, CM - allow me a bit more time to modify that section with a slightly different approach because I believe what we're dealing with is breed branding, and 4 different types of Bull Terriers that have evolved from the Hinks line. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 15:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I’m happy for you to take as much time as you need, but my point is (and remains) Hinks had no role in the development of the Staffie, only one source you have pointed to (the AKC) makes that claim and I (along with apparently every other KC, breed club and author on the subject) believe it to be incorrect.
 * On a separate note, I believe the below sentence to be a misinterpretation of the source:

In mid-19th century Victorian England, the dogs were used for fox hunting and vermin control, above and below ground, as well as for dog fighting.
 * This statement is about of the terrier family as a whole, but not the Staffie or Bull and Terrier, the KC includes that paragraph on every terrier page (Airedale, Australian Terrier and Bedlington Terrier to list the first three). I have never read or heard of Staffie’s (or any other bull terrier) being used for fox hunting or below ground work and believe it to be highly misleading. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC).

Improved history section
Recognising our current discussion about the involvement of Hinks in the development of the Stafford, below is what I believe to be an improved history section:

I believe this to be improved for a number of reasons: I am very open to discussion and suggestions for improvements. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC).
 * it covers the history chronologically from Old English Bulldog to recognition
 * it adequately covers the divergence of the Bull Terrier and the Am Staff
 * it reintegrates the formation of the first breed club, the selection of the name and KC recognition into the history section, these are critical parts of the modern breed’s history than cannot be relegated to a separate recognition section

Pit bull again
, I was of the understanding that consensus has determined the classification of the Stafford as a pit bull did not worthy of the lead, is this a mistake? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC).
 * My sincere apologises, I was looking at the wrong revision. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC).
 * It was my mistake - I fixed it when I got your first notice. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 16:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)