Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/Archive 2

Website bulldoginformation.com probably not RS
I noticed you added today two citations using the website bulldoginformation.com. Please note that this is a self published monetized website by a single person who states no expertise in the area beyond (a) being a webmaster and (b) having "a passion for bulldogs". It is probably not a reliable source per Wikipedia Verifiability and RS guidelines. Nomopbs (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually used Bull and Terrier sources. I will find a better source, but it would prove helpful if you would make note of the source issue at that article as well - there may be other related articles with that same issue. I made the mistake of presuming it was already pre-checked by the editors at Bull and Terrier, and won't make that mistake again. Atsme Talk 📧 14:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I put a note on Bull and Terrier Talk page. I don't have time today to address the rest. I see it's also used in the following articles: Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull and Terrier, Catch dog, List of dog fighting breeds, Catahoula bulldog, Molossus of Epirus, Old English Bulldog, Chinese Crested Dog, Bulldog breeds, Kunming wolfdog, Bay dog, Inbreeding, Greater Swiss Mountain Dog, and Bill George (dog dealer). — Nomopbs (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You can strike this article in your list. I'm pretty sure I've removed all citations to that page, so if you see one I've missed, just remove it and add a tag. Oh, just an FYI - monetization is not a reason to consider a source unreliable. Many, if not most, online RS use monetization or may be behind a paywall.  Atsme  Talk 📧 16:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I know full well that monetization is not the main reason it's not an RS, but I assert it is THE reason why the website was created. I have never seen a more advertise-y website in my life. — Nomopbs (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Pit bull?
Whilst heading for a WP:GAC review, there is a section that refers to the staffie as a "pitbull". The reference is the ASCPA website, which states: "Regulated breeds typically comprise the “pit bull” class of dogs, including American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and English Bull Terriers."

That might simply be a matter of personal phrasing used by the no-name author. You would be unwise to state that "In the United States they are classified as pit bull types" based on that one web-site reference. Does any legislation in the US actually classify the staffie as a pitbull? If not, the term should be removed from the article. Good Article status warrants good quality referencing. William Harris •  (talk) •  09:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing that to our attention, . I have adjusted the wording to more accurately reflect the source. The ASPCA is a highly reputable source, and in this particular article, they explain why they believe breed-specific legislation does more harm than good. Atsme Talk 📧 16:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * From the reading I did during the above pit bull discussion, it appeared that only some jurisdictions in the US and Canada place restrictions on the Staffie, can I suggest we change the current wording from “around the world” to “North American” just list the two countries? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC).


 * Yes, . Exactly my thoughts. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It just needs to be cited to a RS. What did you have in mind? Atsme Talk 📧 16:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I am still not convinced that a statement by an American organisation regarding city laws in the US can be generalised into "A number of federal and municipal governments around the world have placed restrictions on the ownership of the "pit bull class" of dogs......" Here is something you may be able to use, it relates only to the US, but it is directly quoted and would need to be reworded:


 * "It has been estimated that as of 2009, restrictions regarding ownership of dozens of breeds were in place in more than 300 jurisdictions in the US. Most, but not all, breed-specific ordinances in the US include with the term ‘pit bull’ the American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, and Staffordshire bull terrier, along with dogs that, based upon their appearance, are deemed to resemble these breeds."


 * Additionally, second paragraph last sentence. The AKC view on breed specific legislation does not warrant a place in the lede because it is off-topic - is there nothing more we can say about the Staffie here?  William Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 08:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Rather than provide specifics, the lead is summarized and I included the country names rather than saying "world-wide". I also moved the last sentence to the relevant section. Thanks for pointing that out. Atsme Talk 📧 14:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the KC, I question putting any other Kennel Club recognition into the lead, if the AKC why not the CKC, the ANKC, the NZKC etc? I think the last sentence should be dropped altogether. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC).
 * If you have the sources that have published similar information to what KC & AKC have published we can certainly add them in the Recognition section. The only reason AKC is in the lead is to distinguish the Staffordshire as a separate breed from the American Staffordshire Terrier which has its own article, so if there exists a Canadian Staffie, an Australian & New Zealand Staffie that need to be distinguished from Staffordshire Bull Terriers, then yes, we need to include them in the lead. Atsme Talk 📧 14:53, July 9, 2019 (UTC)
 * , I support the inclusion of the AKC recognition within the article (I added it) just not the lead, above the lead is already the distinguish template. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC).
 * Cavalryman, WP:DONTLIKEIT is not a convincing reason to remove material from the lead. It has been there for nearly a month now, and the only thing that has changed is the article is now a GAC. I may be wrong, but I doubt that an RfC will return the results you want, but if you are that determined to have it removed from the lead, I can withdraw this GAC if your intention is to call an RfC to resolve the issue once and for all. Is that what you want? Atsme Talk 📧 21:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoa, as per your request I have taken a back seat and been watching most supportively the excellent work you have been doing, I am now giving you my opinion on a single sentence, if you WP:DONTLIKEIT so be it but I see no reason for AKC recognition to be in the lead. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC).


 * You are acting like you own the article. You do not. See WP:OWNERSHIP. Just because something has been on an article for "over a month", doesn't mean that it should "remain thataway forever". For example, I never looked at the BSL section of the Staffie article until today, so just because no one else saw the problems with it that I saw today, doesn't mean I need to "discuss" my changes with you, or anyone, before making my changes. See WP:BOLD. Nomopbs (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but do either of you realize that this article is a GAC, and that a reviewer has accepted it? Could you not have waited until the reviewer had completed his review before jumping in here at the last minute to suggest changes, and then launch PAs against me because I disagreed with you? Cavalryman, thank you for your comment on my TP - enjoy your new gift. Nomopbs, please settle down. Atsme Talk 📧 23:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Very happy to wait until after the process. And thanks. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC).

You have missed the most obvious source of BSL specifically listing Staffordshire Bull Terriers, while at the same time misunderstanding the citation you added to the article. Go to Breed-specific legislation and you will find "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" mentioned for the 14 countries Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Romania, Singapore, Spain and the United States... plus 12 of the United States of Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and New York. If you go to the new citation you added you will find not only links to the seven countries you think are the only ones, while missing the obvious link titled "Please see a full list of these countries" which links to the "mother lode" list  '''which lists BSL in 52 countries. Now if that ain't "worldwide", I don't know what is.''' — Nomopbs (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I did miss it, Nomopbs - and forgot to sign my last comment. Too many interruptions while I was trying to focus on this review. Thanks for correcting. Atsme  Talk 📧 20:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding, Nomopbs - I don't agree with your removal of large blocks of important encyclopedic information regarding the positions of various notable organizations. Please discuss on the TP before any further BRD while this GA review is in process. Thank you. 21:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I edited the section in the article. Made it short and sweet. Basically just covers where is Staffie IN or OUT of BSL. No frills. Straight to the point. See main article for BSL for further discussion. I think you'll like the new version. — Nomopbs (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * WTF!?!? You didn't even read it! Try again! — Nomopbs (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did read it, and a "no frills" BSL is not compliant with NPOV. The views of notable organizations belong in the article, and it's important for our readers to know why certain dogs were included on that list. There is opposition to such legislation, and we include it. Atsme Talk 📧 21:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, here's my points:
 * The first sentence is a compounded sentence creating WP:SYNTH. The ASPCA citation did not lump those other breeds in with the pit bulls. The ASPCA article mentioned the other breeds separately. Combining them together like this is not only WP:SYNTH but is irrelevant to the subject of Staffordshire Bull Terriers.
 * Sentence two is irrelevant to the Staffie article. It is also an advocacy opinion. See WP:NOTADVOCACY.
 * Sentence three is an "excuse" and is also advocacy and part of a debate that has no place in this article.
 * Sentence four is completely irrelevant to the article.
 * Sentence five is fine, but in your haste to revert my edit, you didn't even re-edit the contributions I made to that sentence, such as the wikilinks to other articles.

A better rendition of the section would be to cover where Staffordshire Bull Terrier and BSL come together, such as WHERE is Staffie included, where is staffie excluded. The "why" is opinion and would only cover one side of an argument and anything you write here will be too limiting to cover the entirety of WHY Staffies are not included in breed prohibited lists for UK, Aus & NZ.

Use this version instead:
 * Though a number of federal and municipal governments around the world[18] have placed restrictions on the ownership of the pit bull class of dogs and typically lists several breeds including the Staffordshire Bull Terrier,[19] Staffies are excluded from the BSL breed lists in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.[5]
 * In 2018 PETA lobbied the British Parliament to have the Staffordshire Bull Terrier included in the list of dog breeds prohibited by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but the idea was rejected by Parliament. The RSPCA, the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust, Blue Cross and the Battersea Dogs & Cats Home all objected to the proposed ban.[20]

Nomopbs (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good, you fixed the first sentence, and separated the breeds as I should've done in the first place. ✅
 * There was no OR, I mistakenly grabbed the wrong reference. The change you made was an improvement. It appears that section is ready to go. ✅ Atsme Talk 📧 03:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Or flip the sentence around: "Although Staffordshire Bull Terriers are excluded from the BSL breed lists in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, a number of federal and municipal governments around the world have placed restrictions on the ownership of the pit bull class of dogs and list several breeds, specifically including the Staffordshire Bull Terrier." Nomopbs (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with advocacy - this article is not the place to debate BSL. Everything we've included in the BSL section is relevant, and we do not omit relevant information, especially what breeds are considered to be aligned with "pit bull types", and the opposing views of notable associations & organizations like the AKC, RSPCA, and PETA. Your suggestion is to eliminate information, and present a single view. I see no benefit to our readers in doing that way. Atsme Talk 📧 22:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * If you want to include a citation and accompanying text about why Staffies were excluded from the list of prohibited dogs in UK for Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, or why they have remained off the list, or why they're not on the list in Australia or New Zealand, then go right ahead. But in the USA, Staffies have always been lumped in with all other pit bull breeds, and there were no attempts to exclude Staffies at inception of a BSL, nor any attempts to remove Staffies from the list of pit bull breeds. There have been attempts to remove ALL pit bull breeds (or all breeds) by getting BSL repealed in a jurisdiction, but that is relevant to BSL, not Staffies. So I repeat, citing any American articles about BSL in the United States is IRRELEVANT to the subject of Staffordshire Bull Terriers, but IS relevant to the subject of BSL (and belongs on THAT article). The sentences beginning "In the US, the ASPCA has..." and "There are some municipalities in the US..." and "AKC considers BSL a slippery slope..." are ALL IRRELEVANT to the topic of Staffies, even if they are relevant to the topic of BSL. The fact that there is a heading in the Staffie article titled "Breed-specific legislation" does not give license to go off on a tangent. And, BTW, your WP:SYNTH is still there at the juncture of pit bulls and on into other non pit bull breeds. — Nomopbs (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

To state the obvious, this is an article about a breed of dog, and such articles tend to attract the attention of passionate dog lovers. This article is going through a GA review, which should be an opportunity for editors to collaborate and cooperate and move forward together. This is not the place for aggressive, confrontational interactions between editors. The tone of this conversation is not appropriate. As an administrator, I urge the editors interested in this article to cooperate with one another with the goal of finding consensus. If the aggressive behavior does not stop, I will issue specific personal warnings, and will block of necessary. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Never heard of GA review. Will read. But pardon me for not participating in something I'd never heard of while just toolin' along with my usual edits when I saw something amiss. — Nomopbs (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just avoid overly aggressive and confrontational interactions with your fellow editors, and all will be well, . Thank you. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

, - what about the following change to the last sentence in the lead: Staffies first arrived in North America in the 1880s but it wasn't until 1974 that the American Kennel Club (AKC) recognized the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a breed; not to be confused with the American Staffordshire Terrier which is a distinctly separate breed.?? I think we should keep AKC in the lead since it is the largest purebred registry in the world but we don't have to mention BSL in the lead since it doesn't apply to Staffies in the UK, Australia and New Zealand - there's a section about it in the body. <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 📧 03:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy with that. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC).
 * That's better than the current sentence. However, I don't understand why you have no citations in the lede to support the text there. — Nomopbs (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , per MOS:CITELEAD it is not necessary to cite the lead. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC).

Excerpts from MOS:CITELEAD: "The lead must conform to verifiability ... the lead will USUALLY repeat information that is in the body ... there is not an exception to citation requirements specific to leads ... The presence of citations in the introduction is ... not prohibited."

Items in lede which either do NOT repeat in the body, or they do repeat in the body but have no citation there either:


 * "that was developed in Staffordshire, England and northern parts of Birmingham" - Not mentioned in body of article
 * "The breed first originated by crossing the Bulldog and Black and Tan Terrier" - Said as fact in lede but mentioned as "one of two theories" in the body
 * "a breed that "emerged as one of the most successful and enduring."" - Quotation has no citation in lede or body
 * "popular family pet and companion dog" - I don't see any wording or citation in body to support this phrase in the lede
 * "The Staffie's early association as a fighting dog was the biggest obstacle to overcome" - Not mentioned in the body in any form
 * "the breed eventually earned recognition as "a wonderful family pet"" - Not supported by the citation given (the UK breed standard) and not mentioned in the body
 * " Staffies first arrived in North America in the 1880s" - not mentioned in the body

— Nomopbs (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I added the 3 instances you mentioned (re: what was worded in the lede but not mentioned in the body text) and restored the citations to the lede that I initially removed at the suggestion of the GA reviewer. I appreciate your efforts in helping to make this article the best it can be, but for future reference, it would prove far more helpful if, instead of you acting the part of a "GA reviewer", you simply cite the sources and add the few words that are in the lede but not in the body text without making any major changes. We don't need 2 GA reviewers. Regarding your concern about the following: "The Staffie's early association as a fighting dog was the biggest obstacle to overcome" - Not mentioned in the body in any form." If you will read the cited sources, (which we are not required to cite for each sentence) you will see that the information you challenged is verifiable. As editors our job is to provide a summary - in our own words (with engaging prose) - of what the sources have published, and in the instance you mentioned, the source actually states Despite its early function, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is known as a wonderful family pet. and Because of its early association with fighting it was, for some time, difficult to get recognition for the breed...; therefore, the prose - The Staffie's early association as a fighting dog was the biggest obstacle to overcome - summarizes what was stated in the source. <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 📧 23:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your recent additions of citations, and your explanations of content and citations. That was all that was needed. I do NOT, however, appreciate the pattern of WP:OWN, climaxing with your latest accusation of me "acting the part of a GA reviewer". So you don't want me making changes AND you don't want me making suggestions? If you nominated the article for GA for the purpose of getting it reviewed "by others", then I fail to see why you rebuff all recommendations whether they appear in article as edits, on Talk page as suggestions or explanations, or within GA review process. Even when you make suggested changes you rebuke the suggester. I, for one, have had enough. I will continue later to review the article (maybe after you're done with your project) and make edits where appropriate and within Wikipedia guidelines. — Nomopbs (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your accusations are unfounded, and I don't appreciate you gaslighting me. may be able to explain how a GAR works since you still don't understand. <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 📧 02:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * @ Nomopbs, I recommend that, as you are a new user, you must leave the Good Article process to continue without further disruption. Please "walk away" and leave it to those who have worked so hard on this project. Your gaslighting is apparent and is deplorable. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have more or less concluded the GA review now, and will look into the issue of the name. I agree that there should be no info in the intro not found in the article body, but citations are usually left out of the intro, and even though it isn't prohibited to add them, they are usually discouraged during WP:featured article reviews, unless they support controversial info. In a case like this, the main writer should decide. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Pibull was the original UK name of the SBTC before Kennel Club recognition however this should not be confused with the American Pitbull Terrier which was developed to be larger by interbreeding with Bulldog type dogs later in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Response to FunkMonk's request for a list
I've been dying to say something about "blowing green". Do you mean "bowling green"?

BSL section: I've expressed my opinion about this previously. The topic is covered at length elsewhere and the middle part of this section is not about the Staffie. What IS about the Staffie is where the breed IS and where it IS NOT restricted by BSL regulations. Maybe keep the PETA 2018 comments. But the part about other breeds... toss. The part about AKC's opinion about BSL... definitely toss. Add that to the BSL article if you think it's important, but it doesn't belong on the Staffie page.

The heading "early protection" doesn't make any sense. You read the Table of Contents and wonder why a breed needs early protection in the history of the breed. You read the section and it doesn't have anything to do with what you THOUGHT it meant. Perhaps name it "Early Animal Welfare Actions" or "Prevention of Cruelty to Animals" or just something which actually categorizes it. Or don't name it at all but just put it under history. Same with Hinks heading. You could omit the heading.

Having said that, it doesn't segue into the article. It jumps from animal welfare actions to James Hinks, and you're left wondering why the section about welfare was even put in there.

I agree with another editor that the heading "James Hinks" and much of the paragraph doesn't really fit with the subject matter. It's far in the past, how does it mate with the welfare section previously, and how does it mate with the later "origins" (Black Country era)? Could there be that the jump in topic is because you've omitted something?

Perhaps you need to swallow hard and actually say what is on everyone's mind, which is that the breed was originally created FOR the blood sports and was heavily used in dog fighting and was the preferred breed for dog fighting in England (frankly, until the American Pit Bull Terrier was imported and supplanted the Staffies as the preferred dog fighting breed; underground, illegal, but still going on in present time). You don't actually mention that aspect of the Staffie history. You hint at it by saying blood sports were banned. You dance around it. But the result is a not-so-honest history with a lot of holes in it. If you really like the breed, you have to "own" its history and origins. Hiding it behind some carefully worded nuances leaves the reader scratching their head and wondering about it all. "Why do they keep mentioning blood sports?" Well, you don't say why. These omissions are why the welfare section and the Hinks section are so disjointed. The article doesn't "flow" because you're leaving out some of the glue to the story.

On the page Fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom, there are 11 fatalities by Staffies or Staffie crosses. Out of a total of 42 on the page, that's 25%, which is a high percentage. Perhaps make mention of that at the tail end of the Popularity section, right after the Chav culture comment. It IS one of the major reasons that there has been pushes to add Staffies to Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act. You well cover why it hasn't been added.

There's just too much non sequitur in the article.

Here is just one example of what I mean about the Staffie history and your article's dance around the topic of fighting dogs as part of the breed's history. This shows that the dogs Mallen et al tried so hard to gain recognition from the Kennel Club were also fighting dogs at the same time. "Joe took Gentleman Jim to Crufts in 1938 and got two “seconds” in the puppy class. Despite his obvious potential in the show ring, Gentleman Jim was no pampered show dog. He had to earn his keep and reputation in the time-honoured manner, fighting and defeating any challenger who turned up at The Cross Guns. Joe recalls that he fought and defeated three game dogs in one afternoon and lost a fang in the process. All this went on in the months leading up to the 1939 Crufts show. In that period, Gentleman Jim proved he was not only cast in the mould of physical perfection, but possessed the tremendous courage and gameness which was a famous attribute in the Mallen strain." That's just one tip of the dog fighting history iceberg I've read.

How you want to handle this information?... meh... I'm just pointing out what I see as errors and omissions.

— Nomopbs (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The main issue here seems to be that the article is not clear on whether the breed was specifically bred for fighting or not. But do we have reliable sources that state this specifically? I don't see any suggested above, which is required for inclusion. The "Theories of origin" section indicates the breed was bred to refine older fighting breeds, which already hints at its purpose, but we can't be more explicit than the available sources are. We need a source that states "the breed was bred for fighting", deducing this from the lives of individual dogs is potential WP:original synthesis. Based on the sources, I do think we could state more explicitly whether the breed was itself used for fighting, not only that it descended from fighting breeds. FunkMonk (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't feel too inclined to do research for the article, but here are some links I'd saved at one point. Maybe they will be useful or give you some ideas of things to google: Interview with Mallen and dark dog, Mallen histories    , 1:53 shows Joe Mallen and an indoor "class" of Staffords  — Nomopbs (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe User:Cavalryman V31 has some links/citations. He seemed knowledgeable about that period of the Staffie's history. — Nomopbs (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, see MOS:US re US versus United States in the article. — Nomopbs (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I corrected the misspelling, and changed the Hinks subsection title., the cited sources verify what is written in the article. I stayed true to the official breed club and breed registry descriptions in the UK and US. Mention of Hinks is DUE because he is credited by the breed registries for perfecting the foundation breeding of the bull terrier type which led to the modern Bull Terrier and Staffie. Hinks continued outcrossing but a group of breeders didn't like the changes being made to the shape of the head, and stayed with the foundation breeding - the article covers it well. As for the fighting history - the article covers it in compliance with NPOV. As you know, WP articles are summaries and should not be overly detailed. The breed registries and their recognized clubs are considered the primary authorities for purebred dogs; therefore, when citing sources, we need to exercise caution and verify the credibility of the respective authors and publishers lest we end-up including the perceptions of pet owners who simply love their dogs. Also, the purebred registries in the US condemn dog fighting which is a felony in the 50 US states, and will take action against any member found to be involved with it in any way. I am of the mind that including any further detail about the centuries-old fighting ancestry of bully types is UNDUE, none of which represents the modern Staffie. We also must not conflate the illegal activity of dog fighting using aggressive crosses of pit bull types with the purebred Staffie and other bull terrier-types that are recognized by purebred registries for dog showing and family pets. I added AKC's position on dog fighting, and believe what is currently included in the article as it relates to the dog bans and advocacies is adequately mentioned, as is the relative legislation - all of which is properly sourced and in compliance with NPOV. I am pinging so he can weigh-in with his suggestions to the proposed changes by Nomopbs as well. <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 📧 13:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (reping bad ping <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 📧 13:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC))
 * The breed registries have nothing to gain and everything to lose by even mentioning the dog fighting past of any of their breeds. Their website is not an encyclopedia; it is a marketing tool. They make money from registrations of puppies born from breedings. Like much marketing, there isn't even a penalty if they lie about a dog breed's history. They are going to put their best foot forward. Wikipedia, on the other hand, does not need to put the best foot forward for topics in the encyclopedia. For you to think that the breed registries' version of a dog breed's history is "the authority" is rather short sighted and not NPOV. Per WP:NPOV: "NPOV, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." — Nomopbs (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * WP is not a SOAPBOX for ban the bully or fighting dog advocacy positions. We go by WEIGHT and expert opinion from mainstream RS; we depend on the authorities of purebred animals, which happen to be the breed registries and breed clubs - nonprofit entities dedicated to the breed and breed improvement with their goal being to create quality show dogs that meet breed standards for conformation and temperament. We have articles about pit bull types, dog fighting and baiting, which is where such information belongs, not here, not on an article about a purebred family pet that is a show dog. WP:DROPTHESTICK. It is not up to the GA reviewer to decide whether or not such detail belongs in this article. That is up to consensus because it is challenged material that has consistently been removed. A GA review is not a place to gain consensus. The reviewer simply reviews the article as presented, and makes suggestion. They either pass or fail the review based on GA criteria., please make a determination based on article content as presented, and close this review. <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 📧 09:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're the one on the soapbox with your insistence in a sanitized version of history in pursuit of promoting a dog breed in present time. I was asked for input, so I gave it. What is neither needed nor wanted is you attacking me personally over and over when I present my opinions about the CONTENT of an article. It still reads disjointed. I offered my opinion of why... because it's missing information. Just because I don't pursue my viewpoint any more vehemently than I do, and let you have your way, doesn't mean you have consensus with your viewpoint. After all, I'm not the only editor you've run off these last few weeks. Why can't you just take an opinion and use it or don't use it. Instead I feel like I'm in a badminton game with an opponent swapping out the shuttlecocks with darts! — Nomopbs (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I never mentioned your name - I do not appreciate being drawn into a WP:BATTLEGROUND or your refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Please do not cause further disruption, and do not address me further. I am done 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 📧 16:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I announced I'd had enough on 11 July and went away, but y'all keep coaxing me back. — Nomopbs (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Not so,, you have long-outplayed your prescence on this article and this Talk. Please, just stay away! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You two need to review Ownership of content and Tag team. — Nomopbs (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This GA review has nothing to do with OWN and your accusation of TAG just took your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior over the top in disruption. I have asked  to keep an eye on this TP since you are a new editor, but you refuse to DROPTHESTICK, and have resorted to casting aspersions against those with whom you disagree. We have done our best to collaborate collegially with you, but you have made the editing environment toxic. Call an RfC if you believe your POV will be accepted over WP:NPOV.  I'm done 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 📧 16:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, since the fighting issue seems to be the last one left, yet the most contentious one, I'll request a second opinion. Since it seems to attract recurring edit wars, it's best to not rush to a conclusion yet, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I found a comment in an essay called Writing about breeds where it says "We cover all this stuff by neutrally observing what is written in the breed standards and related documentation; and in less primary sources like breed encyclopedias (tertiary sources); and especially in any secondary sources like books, academic journals, mainstream newspapers, and other materials not published by any of the kennel clubs or breed associations themselves." I find it interesting that I'm not the only one who has the idea that the material published by a kennel club is not necessarily the senior source for information. I mention this in support of inclusion of the 1930's fighting history of the Staffie even though it is omitted by the AKC and KC in their breed histories. (Note: I'm not referring to the breed standard.) — Nomopbs (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier
This breed is the old pre 1948 standard of the Kennel Club SBT and as there are hundreds if not thousands spread throughout the Commonwealth. They are not APBT being several inches shorter with a different shaped head resembling a coal scuttle not a brick. They are also lighter and smaller then the AST or the American Bully and more athletic than the short legged SBT Kennel Club version. May I request this section closed to deletion to prevent personal bias.

see http://www.staffordmall.com/1935standard.htm


 * The dog writer David Hancock has written a book (Sporting terriers )and several articles mentioning the "Irish Staffie". A number of his previously published articles available on his website include "Saluting the Staffie", "Terriers of Ireland" and "Terrorising the Terrier". Unfortunately he is the only author I can find who makes mention of these dogs and he provides little actual information about their appearance. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC).


 * As you change the header names and layout of this article, please note that there are several redirects that point to headings WITHIN the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article that will need to be updated. The ones I know about are Irish Bull Terrier, Irish staffordshire bull terrier, and Irish Staffie, but there may be others. Nomopbs (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good catch, . The first went to the subsection where the title had been changed, so I changed it back. There was no change for the 2nd, and 3rd needed a lower case fix. <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 📧 23:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It easier to change the forwarder to match what you want the article's header to be. Nomopbs (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Should we nominate for deletion the Portuguese version of "Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier"?
(Not sure where I should put this topic, but I've chosen here because it's the closest thing in English Wikipedia to the topic.)

There is yet another ISBT article here which should be deleted on the basis that it's all bunk (false). I don't know if an English-language nomination to delete on Portuguese wiki will work. If anyone knows, or if someone can do this, please do so. Below are the reasons the article should be deleted. Feel free to use some or all if you can somehow nominate for deletion the Portuguese article.
 * The Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not a breed.
 * The English Wikipedia article "Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier" was deleted because it wasn't a breed (nor notable as a term).
 * Talk page:
 * Last version of the old deleted article:
 * Here is the WP:RS news article mentioning that the breed is not real:
 * Here is a Defra publication mentioning that the ISBT is codename for 'pit bull terrier':
 * The article uses just three citations, repeating. The first citation no longer exists and even the Wayback Machine version  looks no different than all the other self-published ISBT breed descriptions around the internet. The second citation  is jibberish. The third citation  is on a self-published website that makes disclaimers about its accuracy on the About page.
 * Some of the not-used and/or non-WP:RS citations claim the ISBT is recognized in four kennel clubs (Dog Registry of America, Inc, Intercontinental Kennel Club, Irish Staffordshire Federation, United National Kennel Club), none of which seem to have an internet presence mentioning the ISBT (and some having no internet presence at all).
 * The original webpage for Ed Reid, the owner of the Intercontinental Kennel Club, the registry most associated with the ISBT name, is no longer online . The Wayback Machine does offer older versions of the website, none of those which I checked actually mention the ISBT.
 * There are message board discussions about ISBT, pit bulls, Reid, and his registry here and here.

— Nomopbs (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Why complete revert
, why did you revert all of the revisions I made yesterday? All were cited, all included edit summaries, they fixed a number of factual errors you have introduced into the article and you even thanked me for one of them. I have been trying to just discuss amendments with you on the talk page but seem to have been ignored.

Why do we have a section named after someone who HAD ZERO INFLUENCE OVER THIS BREED? It is lunacy. Why is he mentioned in the lead? Why is the modern Bulldog listed as a foundation breed in the lead (something that is incorrect) but then the body and infobox correct that obvious error that YOU HAVE INTRODUCED? Why does the first use of the name Staffordshire Bull Terrier ever appear in the history? Is that not pertinent to the history of a dog called the Staffordshire Bull Terrier?

Why do you claim this breed of dog was introduced to US a half century before they even existed? Because a source says so? Even though that same source has obvious errors that have been discussed above at length.

I await your response. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC).


 * Calvaryman, you began as a helpful collaborator during this GA review but your recent edits were disruptive. You removed large blocks of text, added and renamed subsections, and created cite errors. As the GA nom, I have been working with the GA reviewer for at least a week now, satisfactorily addressing the clarification/context issues he raised and approved on July 14th after the changes were made. You undid all of that and basically forced us to start over from square one. The reviewer's stated intent was to look into the various suggestions made on this TP before finalizing his review. A short day or so later, you took it upon yourself to remove large chunks of text, and performed a remake of the entire article to suit your liking, which disrupted the GA review. Worse yet, you did so without any discussion on the TP. In your wake of reversions/changes, you left citation errors and removed material that I added for clarification. For example, you removed the section James Hinks and added a section about the modern Bull Terrier along with other subsections as follows: Baiting and the Bulldog, Dog fighting and the Bull and Terrier, The modern Bull Terrier, The Staffordshire Bull Terrier If you want to expand the article after it achieves GA status, have at it - get it promoted to FA, but while this GA review is in process, please do not disrupt the flow and create extra work for us.


 * In light of the cite errors you introduced and the material you omitted, the best approach for me was to restore the version previously accepted by the GA reviewer, and work from there. Quite frankly, while your collaboration is certainly welcome, I am still the nom who agreed to work with the reviewer. There is an accepted protocol to follow regarding GA reviews, and it does not include tendentious editing. Perhaps can do a much better job of explaining the review process, and hopefully prevent further disruption and inevitably, a complete fail of this GAC. <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 📧 14:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Atsme did the same thing to me a week ago. It's clear to me that this article wasn't anywhere near ready for a GAR review and Atsme has been using this week long process to do major edits on an article without posting a Template:Under construction. The article has been edited beyond all recognition during a process intended to check and tweak a few things. See What the Good article criteria are not. This article should have been removed from the GAR process days ago once it was noticed that (a) major changes were being done, and (b) there were at least two editors who disagreed strongly about the content (who were being blocked from making those edits). — Nomopbs (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * From What the Good article criteria are not:
 * Actual Criteria: Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * Good article reviews are not supposed to interfere with normal editing.
 * An article is unstable if ... editors are directly telling you that you shouldn't review the article because they're in the middle of major changes, or if the article is changing so dramatically and so rapidly that you can't figure out what you're supposed to be reviewing.
 * Mistakes to avoid: Discouraging normal editing activity for the convenience of the review.
 * — Nomopbs (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

, my additions yesterday were far from tendentious editing, they were attempts at rectifying several major issues that have crept into this article during the GA process. Several of my attempts to disuss a number of major issues that you have introduced have been met with denial followed by lengthy unnecessary debate, or have simply been ignored. I am happy to resume talk page discussion but would appreciate responses and reasoned explanations as to why you disagree.

To get the ball rolling:
 * The lead is now an abomination:
 * in places it contradicts the rest of the article
 * it makes repetitive but contradictory statements in successive paragraphs
 * it introduces statements that are both not consistent with the article and are not supported by the sources (please show me the source that states “The Staffie's association in early 19th century as a fighting dog made it difficult to gain recognition in the purebred registry of the Kennel Club (KC) in the UK, as well as the American Kennel Club (AKC) in the US”.
 * it does not mention and has no link to the Black Country despite the majority of sources specifically referring to it as opposed to the county of Staffordshire
 * it misinterprets and so misconstrues what the article and the sources have to say, the sentence “After the banning of blood sports and pit fighting in 1835, attitudes changed which, over the course of a few centuries, resulted in generations of responsible breeding and further breed refinement of the Staffie as a popular family pet and companion dog” is misleading, after 1835 dog fighting increased


 * The history section, where to start:
 * it does not flow, it jumps from unconnected statement to unconnected statement
 * it no longer covers the history of the breed (one would assume the first appearance of the breed’s name might be pertinent to the breed’s history), instead it just talks about blood sports legislation, James Hinks and Bull and Terriers with no connecting narrative.
 * it devotes an entire sub-section to and named after someone who had no influence over the development of the breed which is the subject of this page. Hinks’ relevance is:
 * the name Bull Terrier was taken before Staffordshire recognition was sought
 * the Staffordshire was the base breed used when developing the Bull Terrier

I keenly await your responses. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC).
 * You continually claim the “Staffie” and more recently the “Staffordshire” was introduced into the US a half century before the breed existed. Your more recent wording grossly misinterprets the new source I can assume has been introduced to justify the maintenance of this obvious nonsense. Yes Bull and Terriers were introduced to the States in 19th century, let’s just say that.
 * You are placing undue weight on the AKC recognition process as opposed to othe KCs
 * Thankfully you have removed (hopefully with fire) the diatribe about the UKC which has no relevance to this page.

Hold on just a minute, and let's recap exactly what has taken place since May 24th:
 * The article sat here with little to no activity after I announced #Potential GA here on May 24, 2019.
 * On June 13, I nominated the article for GA.
 * On June 25th, one comment by followed by a short back & forth about the term pit bull.
 * On June 29th Cavalryman, and I commented.
 * July 8 the review was accepted.
 * July 9th Nomopbs and Calvaryman decide there are issues with the article, and haven't let up since.

Now what exactly are you are gaslighting me over or are you projecting? I simply made the changes suggested by the reviewer and all of a sudden, Nomopbs attempts to displace the reviewer, and Cavalryman attempts to displace the nom. It's pretty obvious that I'm not the one causing the instability. Calvaryman, my suggestion to you now that this GA review is stalled as a result of the instability you and Nomopbs have caused, is to call an RfC for whatever you want to include or remove. I will not be drawn into edit warring or bickering back and forth over the same things I've said repeatedly but all I'm getting is either WP:DONTLIKEIT or WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. I have better things to do with my time, and I'm sure does, too. <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 📧 00:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree this is getting sidetracked, and for me as GAN reviewer, these parallel discussions are getting hard to follow. If editors have reservations to specific points I have proposed at the GAN talk page, please bring them up there, as stated by the GAN template above: "Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer." Maintenance tags are not needed, as GAs are expected to undergo major changes by default. Also, bringing up the instability GA criterion while being the source of the instability (after the GA review has begun, no less) is disingenuous; bring up issues here instead of edit warring if you are honestly concerned about stability. As for whether this article was ready for a good article nomination or not, that would be better appreciated if suggested by someone with experience in actually reviewing or nominating GAs. FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I take exception to the accusations of being disruptive and of tendentious editing for making well sourced amendments with full explanation, but I agree this is not construtive for the review, so in the review‘s interest I will withdraw somewhat from this article until after it is completed. For now I simply ask (without condition) that:
 * thorough consideration be make of the relevance of James Hinks to this breed, I believe currently undue attention is given to someone who had no impact on this breed
 * the lead be carefully looked at to ensure it does not misinterpret the rest of the article
 * the source cited for the sentence The Staffie's early origins as a fighting dog made it difficult to gain recognition as a breed for entry in the KC's breed registry be reviewed, and if found not to make this claim and no other source is found, the sentence be removed both from the paragraph and the lead
 * common sense be applied to the notion that Staffies first arrived in North America in the mid to late 1880s, that is clearly not the case.
 * I look forward to seeing the results of the review. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the overview, will make it much easier than reading through the entire discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I am concerned whenever I see editors previously uninvolved (or minimally involved) with an article suddenly appear at a GAN or other review, deliberately creating disruption and instability, particularly when the lead editor on the project is someone they have previously tangled with. Where they had a chance to comment during the pre-GA process and failed to do so, This smacks of hounding. I think that the status quo ante of a GAN needs to be preserved until or unless there is consensus between the reviewer and lead editors that changes are needed. To the extent that “drive-by” editors certainly can put in their two bits, it needs to be done on the talkpage and not with dramatic edits that change the entire nature of the article. Montanabw (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * and, there are two other concerns I have with the current version:
 * the omission of most of the information in the KC subsection from the history. The events of 1930–1935 are key elements in this breed’s history, the first use of it’s current name, the formation of the first breed club and the publication of the breed standard mark the point this breed transitioned from a dog type to a dog breed, given this is an article about the breed that is possibly the most pertinent point in the breed’s history.
 * the misconstruing of rat-baiting as vermin control, one is a blood sport and the other is not, all of the sources refer to organised rat baiting.
 * , if you are suggesting I am previously uninvolved with this article I suggest you check the page history, in March I completely rewrote this article, most of the paragraphs currently in this article were introduced by me, I know what the sources say because I introduced most of the major ones and to stand back and allow inaccurate information to be introduced in the name of a review is poor form. As for my previous “previous tangles” with Atsme, as far as I am aware every previous interaction I have ever had with her is on this page. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC).

The wikibullying needs to stop; especially the name calling and actions caused by failure to assume good faith. Please review Expert retention and WikiProject Editor Retention. — Nomopbs (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am extremely uncomfortable labeling anything that has occurred here as bullying, this is standard (admittedly quite robust) content discussion. The timing of these discussions is unfortunate but I fear inaccuracies and inconsistencies have crept into the article during the process and the process is being used as a reason to avoid debate. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC).
 * Not sure how it is "bullying" to suggest that common editing conventions be followed. Nomopbs needs to quit the hyperbole and stick to the issues, here on the talk page. The best way to proceed is to make a list of perceived issues with the article, and then let the GA nominator respond to the list, which is how GA reviews are conducted. Anything else (including edit-warring and accusations) is just disruption for no good reason at this point. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break
✅ The two points mentioned by :
 * the omission of most of the information in the KC subsection from the history.... -- ?? There is no omission of anything relevant to SBT. You mentioned events of 1930–1935, first use of current name, formation of first breed club and breed standard - that information is summarized in the section Kennel Club and was restored when I restored the version initially approved by the reviewer. What I did not restore were the off-topic sections Baiting and the Bulldog, which belongs in the Bulldog article, Dog fighting and the Bull and Terrier, which belongs in the Bull and Terrier article, The modern Bull Terrier which belongs in the Bull Terrier article. What readers need to know about Hinks & his "white cavalier" is simply a basic understanding that what he did caused a split into 2 different breed types, one of which led to the creation of the modern Staffie.


 * the misconstruing of rat-baiting as vermin control, one is a blood sport and the other is not, all of the sources refer to organised rat baiting - ✅ SBT is categorized in the Terrier group (vermin chasers, ratters, etc.); however, published material about that activity is too sparce to worry about including it at this point. There are some books/articles that mention badger, hog & fox hunting but they are too few and far between. It was mostly a rural farm activity but, again, sparsely covered. <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, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * With respect this is unsatisfactory:
 * to exclude information about the breed’s history from the history section makes no sense
 * when the majority of sources say these dogs were used for organised rat baiting, that should be included. That a KC makes a generalised three word statement about a very broad grouping of dogs does not give merit the exclusion of reliability sourced content.
 * Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC).
 * What 2 secondary RS do you have that we can cite for inclusion regarding Staffordshire Bull Terriers were used for rat-baiting, and we'll add it. <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 📧
 * Of existing sources in the article Fogle, Hancock and Zarley (the last an excellent source you have introduced that compliments Beaufoy in stating the 1835 Act resulted in an increase in dog fighting in Britain and will be used by me following the review to expand that section). Further sources are included in the rat baiting and Westminster Pit articles of Bull and Terriers used in the pits, as well as Phil Drabble in his Of Pedigree Unknown: Sporting and Working Dogs, as well as David Plummer in Tales of a Rat-Hunting Man.
 * Despite your contention that this is the last unresolved issue I do not consider it so, I have listed several above (in particular omissions from the history section and the naming a section after Hinks and the preposterous assertion that “Staffies” arrived in the New World 50 years before the name was coined) but am very happy to leave them until after review. I am very appreciative of those concerns of mine you have addressed and feel the article is better for it. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC).


 * Well, thank you for your consideration in allowing the GA review to continue without further interruption. What I would appreciate equally as much is your recognition of our WP:PAGs which are meant to guide us when including content, particularly NOR, V, NPOV, DUE, and RS. If it is determined that a cited source does not support the material you include, it will be removed, not unlike what I have done when you challenged material that was not supported by RS. The sources you referenced above do not name Staffordshire Bull Terriers as pit bulls that were used for rat-baiting simply because the breed did not exist at that time; therefore, it is your opinion based on your interpretation of the sources, and what is believed to be their ancestry. See WP:RS and WP:V as it directly relates to this issue.


 * A Jan 2019 article in the NYTimes explains it well: Pit bull is actually an umbrella term rather than a specific breed, said Dr. Pamela Reid, the vice president of the ASPCA anti-cruelty behavior team. “With the pit bull we have this pervasive label that encompasses a variety of purebred dogs as well as mixes that share characteristics but not DNA, like American pit bull terriers, Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American bulldogs. ‘Pit bull’ is now a label for any medium to large, muscular, short-coated dog with a blocky, disproportionately large head.” That article specifically mentions that Staffordshire Bull Terriers were used for fighting and bull-baiting, which I included and cited in the lede and body text. It meets the requirements of both V & RS. The article also states: “The result is a population of dogs with a wide range of behavioral predispositions,” Dr. Reid said. “We know that there’s so much individual variability within a breed it makes sense scientifically to treat them as individuals.” I reiterate, "individuals" not the entire breed, whatever that breed may be. A Bull and Terrier of the past is not a modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Do not conflate the two, or juxtapose material to imply same. Use inline text attribution or a quote by a credible author but it must unequivocally state that Staffordshire Bull Terriers were used for rat-baiting, and if it doesn't, then it does not belong in this article - see WP:SYNTH. Also keep in mind that we already have Rat-baiting, Blood sports, Bull and Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Pit Bull etc. in addition to articles about the legislation that banned blood sports, and relate to animal cruelty. <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 📧 14:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well said, ! Good work and ready for GA. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

and others, I wish to apologise for my behaviour over the period 17-19 July, I will not attempt to make excuses for my actions with off-Wiki sob stories, my behaviour was inappropriate, it most likely derailed the GAN process and cost friendships. Forgiveness is a big ask so instead I ask that you accept my apology which is made in all sincerity. Cavalryman (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC).
 * Awww...you are such a sweetie, Cavalryman. You have done nothing to need forgiveness from me.  I wish you much joy and happiness (and lots of catch-up sleep) now that you have such a wonderful new gift in your life. They grow-up fast, so try not to miss any of those special moments. But if you can squeeze in some time to collaborate with us, your input is always welcome!! <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 📧 13:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for local consensus
, who is the GA reviewer, has requested opinions regarding the ancestry of the breed as fighting dogs. Please choose one of the following options: If you have found RS to cite for the added info, please include a link. <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 📧 19:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - the section Staffordshire Bull Terrier is acceptable as is - conclude the GA.
 * Option 2 - add more information about ancestral Fighting dogs used in Blood sports prior to official recognition of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a breed.
 * Option 3 - ascertain any link between the Bull and Terrier type and dog-fighting based on WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY sources. per William Harris below

Discussion

 * Option 1 3 - the history is well-covered, plus there are other articles about Blood sports, Pit Fighting, etc. <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 📧 19:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 3 - ascertain any link between the Bull and Terrier type and dog-fighting based on WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY sources. All of the references in that specific section are based on dubious website material, with the only secondary source being David Hancock, Sporting terriers: their form, their function and their future, Ramsbury, Wiltshire: The Crowood Press Ltd., 2009 for which no page number is given. (Perhaps what is there currently is acceptable for GA - it certainly would not pass FA.) I have just dropped a Refimprove template on the Dog fighting section of the Bull and Terrier article - not one reference supports anything claimed in that section. Perhaps the time to end breed club myth starts now with the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article. I note that the FCI Breed Standard has not bought into this myth.  William Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 22:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you and changed my position. Let's give this until the 20th (7 full days) for others to weigh-in, and then if you've a mind to, go ahead and make the necessary corrections to the History section, and let's get this GAC promoted. <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 📧 15:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Recently I did some work on the Irish Wolfhound, completely demolishing the myth that it is the direct descendant of the ancient wolf-hunting dog of Ireland. What does its breed history (not the kennel club nonsense) and DNA tell us? It is largely a Great Dane! There is no breed of dog from Ireland in it at all. Similarly, we can leave what is already written in the Staffie article if you wish, I will simply add a new subsection at the end of the History section titled DNA analysis, which will call into question everything written above it. (Hint - it didn't originate in Britain............)  William Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 06:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to add here. Just pleased that it looks like good outcome is in sight. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As the reviewer, I'll remain neutral in the discussion, but good to see it is getting somewhere. I'll ping and  who were part of the older discussion, so that we've got everything covered. FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * - FYI - 08-30-2019. <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 📧 16:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Settles that, then... FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping, apologies for my late response I missed the notice on WP Dogs and have removed this page from my watchlist. I am fully supportive of restarting the process, Hancock’s Sporting terriers specifically states the Staffordshire’s forebears (he discusses both theories of origin) on page 60, further references are on pages 61-66. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC).


 * So now it's the 20th, and as far as I can see, there is now agreement about what has been done. I will promote the article to GA tomorrow, in case someone wants to add a comment here about it in the meantime. [User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This review commenced on 7 July and finalised on 21 September. It has been quite a journey with a number of "dog-fights" along the way. All credit to Atsme and our long-suffering reviewer, FunkMonk.  William Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 10:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hehe, the intensity of these discussions caught me off guard. Next time I have to choose between reviewing an article about a dog-breed or Middle East conflicts, I might have to choose the latter for their comparative tranquility... FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * SMirC-beam.svg AP2 comes to mind for me, FM. I am adding my comment to you from yesterday in expression of my gratitude. As for the credit, it was a collaborative effort and deserves to be shared with you, William, and Cavalryman and other members of the dog project who helped make it happen - credit should be shared by all. Success that comes easy isn't quite as sweet as the success one works hard to achieve. <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 📧 13:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Irish Stafford
I have enhanced the section on ISBT as it is incorrect and simply follows the ludicrous UK Govt narrative that a larger Stafford is an American Pitbull Terrier. It is part of the Pitbull group being a progenitor of the SBT AST and APBT. Many websites acknowledge the breed and there are thousands of these dogs in the British Isles as they do not have the fitness overheating problems of the shorter legged post 1938 SBTC standard.

https://www.dogbreedinfo.com/irishstaffordshirebullterrierphotos.htm

https://www.dogbreedplus.com/dog_breeds/irish_staffordshire_bull_terrier.php

https://www.dogvog.com/irish-staffordshire-bull-terrier/

https://www.dogtemperament.com/irish-staffordshire-bull-terrier/

https://www.sarahsdogs.com/breeds/irish-staffordshire-bull-terrier/

https://carnivora.net/irish-staffordshire-bull-terrier-t2614.html

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Irish-Staffordshire-Bull-Terrier-Guide/dp/1526907267

https://www.dogvog.com/irish-staffordshire-bull-terrier/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Further to our other discussion, please see what constitutes an accepted WP:RELIABLE source of information on Wikipedia.  William Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 02:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, as has already been articulated by above, none of the links you have listed, including your most recent addition, meet the threshold as reliable sources and so cannot be used to cite any additions to the page. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC).

Please do censor verifiable statements or you may have your editing rights removed. The Irish SBT Amazon books have ISBN numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom
, I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:BRD. Now, outline why your edit warred in addition adds to this article or it will be removed. Cavalryman (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC).
 * familiar, you might do well to note:"Revert an edit if it is not an improvement...Consider reverting only when necessary." You contend that a link to relevant content (currently missing from the article) is not an improvement. Can you explain your rationale here? The breed has been implicated in 12 widely reported fatalities in the UK alone, and is banned across multiple territories. The only reason I can see for the article failing to mention any of this is that certain editors (most likely specific staff owners who happen to be editors) would rather it wasn't detailed. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 10:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You linking to that in a section about breed-specific legislation appears to be WP:ADVOCACY, these dogs are not subject to any such legislation in the UK. So yes, I am unconvinced that edit was in any way an improvement. Cavalryman (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC).
 * Advocacy? interesting, and your evidence for this vacuous charge?
 * In actuality, objectively, it's quite clear that the article is missing pertinent content relating to:
 * a) multiple widely reported fatalities (and not just in the UK).
 * b) bans and restrictions in countries including Ireland, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Portugal, Romania, Spain,  Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, UAE, as well as Canadian states Manitoba and Ontario, and counties in US states including Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia.
 * Can you explain why you feel none of this is worthy of mention in the main body of text? And failing inclusion of direct mention, why do feel that links to articles that detail information that directly relates to the subject Staffordshire Bull Terrier should be excluded? <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 11:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes the article acknowledges you above point B, and it acknowledges the UK does not place any such restrictions on the breed. So again, placing this link in a section about breed-specific legislation appears to be advocacy. Cavalryman (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC).
 * second time you have accused an editor of "advocacy" without evidence.
 * why do you feel mention of multiple widely reported fatalities (and not just in the UK) should be excluded from the article?
 * why do you feel mention of bans in multiple territories should be excluded from the article? <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 11:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, you have not explained how linking this list relating to a country that imposes no restrictions on the ownership of this breed has anything to do with BSL, either it is a vacuous addition (to use your word above) or it is advocacy. Cavalryman (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC).
 * third spurious accusation of advocacy.
 * bans and restrictions exist in countries including Ireland, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Portugal, Romania, Spain,  Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, UAE, as well as Canadian states Manitoba and Ontario, and counties in US states including Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia.
 * oddly none of this is mentioned in the article, readers instead have to click through to Breed-specific legislation.
 * following this rationale - in a second instance where an article fails to include notable content that directly relates to the subject - a link to an article detailing multiple instances of fatal attacks attributable to this breed is provided.
 * this is hardly controversial, it improves the article and makes it more informative. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 11:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

You still have not explained the relevance of the list you edit warred into the BSL section. These dogs are not subject to any BSL in the UK. Cavalryman (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC).
 * relevance clearly set out above.
 * why do you feel mention of multiple widely reported fatalities (and not just in the UK) should be excluded from the article?
 * why do you feel mention of bans in multiple territories should be excluded from the article?
 * <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 12:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No the relevance is not explained anywhere. The breed is not restricted by BSL in the UK so what is the connection between the list and BSL? That is what you edit warred into the article. Cavalryman (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC).
 * as already explained, relevance to subject is patently clear, your reluctance to acknowledge it appears odd.
 * "what is the connection between the list and BSL?," as explained above, it includes widely reported instances of SBT fatal attacks, 12 of which were in the UK.
 * why do you feel mention of bans in multiple territories should be excluded from the article? <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 14:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh please https://www.therealpitbull.com/facts/ The American staffies look similar to American bully but taller and the English staffies have a smile on their face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B105:CEA3:8538:8A78:1D69:A5A5 (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh please yourself! A website called therealpitbull.com with no author nor references fails WP:RS.Aren't you a bit old to be believing what is claimed by entities out on the internet? 182.239.146.186 (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Killer Breed
I'm really surprised that there are not many references in the article to the fact that this breed routinely kills people, particularly children. The internet is littered with articles about people being killed by Staffordshire Bull Terriers. It seems that there are a number of Staffordshire Bull Terrier enthusiasts on here who keep moulding this article with positive points as opposed to the truth that this breed is s killer. 146.90.15.7 (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? Cavalryman (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC).

Then you know little about the breed I can very safely say SBT when brought up nicely are truly lovely animals. The sensationalising media have demonised this breed along with its cousins the Am Staff and ISBT. Anyway not much longer now before the DDA will be rewritten as Vets / Kennel Clubs are on the side of reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Please dont remove legitimate comment or your editing rights may be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

You know nothing about Pitbulls and staffie (English staffies look like they are smiling and the American ones are taller then American bully and have pointy ears) Read this https://www.therealpitbull.com/facts/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B105:CEA3:8538:8A78:1D69:A5A5 (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Bull and terrier
I am of the opinion that Bull and terrier should be merged into this page. Since rewriting the history section of this article two years ago, more and better sources have become available to me, and the vast majority consider the two one and the same, several stating explicitly the Bull and Terrier became the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The current breed name Staffordshire Bull Terrier was only adopted in the 1930s in order to gain recognition for the breed with the Kennel Club, but the article should very definitely retain this name. Cavalryman (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC).
 * , mostly I'm inclined to defer to your opinion – this is not an area I'm particularly (or really even marginally) familiar with. But given the second sentence of our Bull and terrier article ("It was a crossbreed that was the progenitor of several modern standardised breeds (Bull-type terriers), including the Bull Terrier, Miniature Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier"), are we really sure that this and no other breed descended from it? Should we not let these particular sleeping dogs lie? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is that last thought that has made me stop before now. I am unsure about the Dogs Argentino (it looks a little like romanticised OR) but the others definitely do descend from the B&T, but the overwhelming number of quality sources either imply or state explicitly that the Staffie is the B&T, just with a new brand; the history of the Staffie is that of the B&T until the 1930s. The B&T article has been on my to do list for some time (I think the Staffie’s history needs a little refresh also), but when I do the former we will have a bit of a CFORK. Cavalryman (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC).
 * Fascinating position. Where does its nearest cousin, the English Bull Terrier, fit into this picture? <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 09:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The English Bull Terrier was created as a refined version of the B&T by outcrosses with collies and English White Terriers, it was then widely shown under the name Bull Terrier and achieved Kennel Club recognition under that name. Having had their preferred breed name effectively stolen and copyrighted by an imposter, the breeders of B&Ts had to settle with the name Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC).
 * This |anthology also appears to be informative, with the "Bully" stated as coming directly from various crossings of bulldog with terrier - plus some more elegant breeds thrown into the mix. Therefore, there is no need for a "Bull & Terrier" dog type to be in between, which adds to your argument. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 22:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support as per nom. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 22:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The Bull and Terrier was an important middle step in creating many bully breeds as noted in this chart. Certainly, NOT just the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.  It is often written up as it's own historical breed in books.  There is plenty of room for this article at Wikipedia and allows room to expand the article over time.  In addition, ten Wikipedia's in various languages have the Bull and terrier as a separate article.  Blockhouse321 (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)  Struck comment from two time TBAN evading sockpuppet of the article’s creator. Cavalryman (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC).
 * What I see provided here is a link to a chart taken from the internet of unknown origin, with no author nor references provided, depicting a collection of dogs referred to as "Bully". This is hardly providing a WP:RELIABLE source to support your position. Do you have anything else? <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 22:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I oppose it the Bull and Terrier is clearly a separate breed of dog.Dwanyewest (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * you say clearly these two are separate, can you provide any reliable sources to verify that statement? The Bull and Terrier page was created by a known disruptive Sockpuppeteer who has been topic banned from dog fighting breed articles because of their disruption in this area. Further, as shown above, a majority of reliable sources state they are one and the same. Cavalryman (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC).
 * The AKC recognise the Bull and Terrier as progenitor of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Dwanyewest (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * the AKC are notoriously unreliable when it comes to breed histories, and particularly so when it comes to the SBT, on their SBT breed page they claim James Hinks was involved in the breed’s development, that is contradicted by literally every other source on the subject (but interestingly that page actually supports this merger saying The Bull-and-Terrier, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Pit-dog, and the Brindle Bull are a few of the Stafford’s historical aliases.). The article you have linked here makes some other significant mistakes, the Bull Terrier and SBT did not diverge, the aforementioned James Hinks crossbred B&Ts/SBTs with English White Terriers and Collies to achieve the colour and head shape of that breed, whilst the SBT remained unchanged. Cavalryman (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC).
 * whilst I remain unconvinced by their website’s accuracy, I have just found a book written by the American Kennel Club which is published by a reputable external publishing house, The complete dog book. It makes several statements about the Bull and Terrier:
 * "... originally called the Bull-and-Terrier Dog, Half and Half, and at time Pit Dog and Pit Bullterrier. Later, it assumed the name in England of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier." Page 318.
 * "It [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was called by names such as “Bulldog Terrier” and “Bull and Terrier”." Page 369.
 * Does this assuage some of your doubts? Cavalryman (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC).


 * Oppose. A cursory look at Bull and terrier says B&T is part of the history of multiple different breeds. Breeds mentioned in B&T article with B&T as a progenitor: Bull Terrier, Miniature Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier, as well as Fox Terrier, Airedale Terrier, rat-working terriers, working black and tan terriers and most all other vermin-hunting terriers. The B&T article is a full blown article in its own right. There are a lot of 'overlapping' articles in Wikipedia and I don't think there is a guideline against that. Surely there is no downside to leaving B&T in an article of its own so it could be linked to from the history sections of those other breeds. Rather, if you merge the content, then other breed histories mentioning B&T will wind up with a link to Staffordshire Bull Terrier (which is not part of their history). Platonk (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello do you have any sources to verify what the article says? As articulated above, quality sources say they are one and the same? Cavalryman (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC).
 * Greetings No sources, just my logic applied to what I know about breeds, their changes over time, and people's perceptions/thoughts when they read things. What I got from what I read was that the majority of the sources are saying their breeds are from the old B&T (not SBT), and you say there are a few sources indicating SBT is simply the new name of B&T (circa 1930s). Ok, let's assume all those writings are true. And we know that breeds morph over time, so the post-1930-SBT (especially today, 90 years later) isn't the same as the pre-1930-B&T. I'm assuming those other breeds were created pre-1930. If you put B&T into article SBT, you're basically saying they are one and the same. And the reader who reads about an Airedale is going to be directed to the SBT article and might think to themselves, "I guess my dog is sort of a pit bull". Whacky, but that's what location in Wikipedia has the potential to do.
 * And if you merge B&T into SBT, you're going to have to put all that hunting and fighting history in SBT, too. I see some is there, but I would think that the history section of SBT would be more about how B&T became SBT, and less about B&T's old history (which is ancient history to SBT).
 * And then there's 'due weight' (and keep in mind how everyone, rightly or wrongly, takes Wikipedia's word as truth and republishes stuff they find on Wikipedia): if the majority of the sources say that their breed comes from the old B&T (not SBT), and you have a few sources saying SBT is simply B&T renamed, would location of the material within Wikipedia (in SBT article versus a separate B&T article) give more weight to the few sources over the majority sources? Will the new generation of "got all my research done on Wikipedia" start publishing articles saying how Airedales came from Staffordshire Bull Terriers?
 * I guess I'm just trying to drive home the point that even if B&T equaled SBT in 1930, does B&T=SBT today? Do you want to 'collapse time' and bring everyone to thinking that oldB&T=todaySBT? Keeping separate articles keeps the time (and changes that happen over time) separated. Might it not be better to leave the B&T article separate so that there's no mistaking that it was the precursor to SBT (and a few others)? Just consider the pros and cons of merging the information. What is the benefit of merging the two articles, and what would be the results or consequences? Just some things to think about. Platonk (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * welcome back to Wikipedia, I know it’s been 11 months but it feels much longer, pandemic and all. Yes this would involve a serious expansion of the history section and due acknowledgement/explanation in the lead. Cavalryman (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC).
 * I gather from the above that you are worried this article’s history section will become more about the B&T, given most quality sources state they are the same thing that is wholly appropriate. Do you have any meaningful policy based rationale for opposing this merger, or again can you point to any sources that state they are different? Cavalryman (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC).
 * I notice you seem have stepped away from participating in all topics related to dogs and canines, but I ask again do you have any sources or meaningful policy based rationale for opposing this merger? Cavalryman (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC).
 * Asked and answered! I left this discussion because within hours of me answering your question, you completely dismantled then co-opted a new template I had just made elsewhere, without any discussion, and you didn't answer my question to you about it. That, plus the strange personal-like comments you directed at me, and the WP:OWN behavior you display on this talk page, suggests the template destruction was a hostile act (perhaps to game this proposal) rather than one based in logic or policy. Therefore, I am not interested in interacting with you. Please stop tagging me or trying to engage me. Platonk (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Bull and Terrier was the progenitor for the SBT / APBT / AST but is not the same breed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello IP, do you have any sources that corroborate this statement? As you can see above, multiple quality sources say they are one and the same dogs. Cavalryman (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC).
 * See http://thestaffordshirebullterrier.co.uk/history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello again IP, I have taken the liberty of moving the link above you added (with this edit) so the conversation makes sense.
 * Wikipedia only accepts reliable sources which the above website is not. But ... still that website does not state they are separate and even includes this interview with Joe Mallen, considered one of the men pivotal in the breed’s recognition, which states emphatically that Bull and Terrier is just another old name previously used for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC).
 * OK try this link http://thesbtc.co.uk/breed-info/ the bull and terrier was almost a mongrel until the SBT Club stabilised the look via line breeding in the 1930s and in those days the standard was larger at 18 inches at the withers. Hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If anything that link endorses this merger, stating the Staffie descends directly from a “cross between the Bulldog and a terrier” not some in between breed. Regardless of what it was called previously (various names including Bull and Terrier) it is now called the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC).

This proposal appears to be attracting lots of personal opinions - no doubt based on dubious websites and references which people have read in their past (it even surprised me!) - but it is not attracting WP:RELIABLE references to support those opinions. "Dwayne" and Platonk do you still maintain your original positions after Cavalryman's comments, please? <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 07:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * and : Apparently I'm going to have to comment in order to stop the pinging. To both of you, you are asking for a reference and I gave you logic, as did several others. This proposal is 4.5 months old. I see a series of 'oppose' votes and not one other editor supporting the proposal. If you don't have the support of enough other editors after 4.5 months, I'd say the proposal is dead for the time being. That is my two cents. I stopped being interested in this thread four weeks ago, so you can both stop pinging me. Platonk (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 04:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. There is no reason to keep the articles separate when the sources clearly state they are they same thing. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - (excerpt): ...the progenitor of several modern standardised breeds (bull-type terriers), including the Bull Terrier, Miniature Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier. I believe it is important to maintain this article as a stand alone reference because of the various resulting breeds, not just the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Merging it into a single article (breed) may confuse readers into thinking the Staffordshire is the primary resulting cross that led to the development of those other breeds. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 15:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Adding- AKC excerpt from Bull Terrier history: Basically the hybrid of its day, the bull and terrier wasn’t a bona-fide breed. Rather, it was a rough outline, a starting point for several breeds, including the dogs that today we call “pitbulls.” The next section title reads From Bull-and-Terrier to Bull Terrier. 15:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , please can you indicate what the first quote above is an excerpt from? That account of the genesis of the Dogo Argentino contradicts every secondary source I have read on the subject so I doubt its accuracy. Re the second quote, as we have discussed previously the AKC is notoriously unreliable when it comes to breed histories, but as I have explained above when their work is reviewed by a publisher they state these two are one and the same. There are a preponderance of secondary sources that state they are one and the same breed, and that the APBT/AmStaff descend from early British B&Ts/SBTs, some are cited above and here are some more.
 * The B&T article was created by a notorious sock puppeteer whose socks have received multiple blocks for serious incompetence and disruptive editing, and further have twice been TBANed from editing dog and/or terrier articles (once thanks to you). The B&T article’s sources that actually discuss the breed either date from the 19th century or are self-published rubbish, whilst multiple quality, reliable secondary sources have been provided demonstrating they are one and the same breed, just their current name was adopted in the last century. Cavalryman (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC).
 * The excerpt is in the lead of the B&t article, (I fixed it above), and it is cited to 5 different sources. If you have the time and energy to verify all those sources, please do. When I was bringing the staffie article to GA status, I did not find any reliable references (beyond anecdotal) that convinced me the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the "original" Bull and terrier, whatever that may be, as it was never standardized/recognized beyond being random results of crossbreeding. See the 2017 DNA analysis in the article which states the following (my bold underline): In 2017, a genome-wide study suggested that all of the bull and terrier–type dogs, including the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, map back to the terriers of Ireland and to origins which date to the period 1860–1870. The timing coincides with historical descriptions of dog fighting contests in Ireland, a lack of accurate stud book documentation, and subsequently, the undocumented crosses of dogs during the time when these breeds were first created. By 1874, in Britain the first Kennel Club Stud Book was published, which included Bull Terriers and Bulldogs . See UKC's description of the Bull terrier. Also see how UKC specifically separates the staffie from other bull and terrier breeds per the following statement in the history section: 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. I'll expand a bit more because the national breed registries do keep historic documentation, and AKC states: It was in the early 1860s that Englishman James Hinks took an old fighting breed, a Bulldog-terrier cross called the Bull-and-Terrier, and refined and standardized it as the modern Bull Terrier. The bottomline is that there are other Bull and terrier descendents and resulting breeds, and it would be inaccurate to merge the Bull and terrier article with the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article, as it leaves the impression that it was simply a name change when that couldn't be further from accurate. I believe that it would serve far more benefit to our readers if we cleaned-up (CE & cite better sources) the Bull and terrier article for accuracy's sake, and kept it as a historic reference - you know, like Homo erectus vs Homo sapiens. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 02:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Atsme, thanks for the response. Yes I agree there are a number of other breeds that descend from the B&T, but that doesn't detract from the SBT being the original (under a new name). According to some of the best sources we have been citing in recent years, the history of the B&T is the early history of the SBT. Re the UKC, as has been discussed at WT:DOGS we no longer cite kennel clubs for their breed histories because they contain too many inaccuracies. But ... that AKC quote does not contradict this, the SBT was only given that name in the 1930s, before that it was called the B&T.
 * This proposal came about because I started collecting sources to rewrite the B&T article and I found most good ones state they are just an early name for the SBT. As far as I can tell the B&T article is just another abysmal SirIsaacBrock/IQ125 creation that cobbles together some contemporary mentions with SBS, SYNTH and OR, and it has been accepted as true until now. Having made this proposal I have deliberately not edited the B&T article that much to avoid accusations of doing so to sway this debate, basically when it happens it will be a case of WP:NUKEIT. But I don't know how to rewrite it and not state they are SBTs, all the good sources say as much, and I honestly don't see how any credible editor can deny it without providing a greater volume of contradictory sources, but they just don't exist. Cavalryman (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC).
 * With all due respect Cavalryman, clarification 20:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC) generally speaking, when cherrypicking sources to fit a particular narrative, it is not too difficult to make history (and resulting generalities/anecdotal evidence) align with the fallacious belief that all bull and terrier breeds are pit bulls (Staffordshire bull terriers) and should be put down, but I adamently disagree. Just my nickel's worth. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 01:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * who says I am cherry picking sources and/or advocating the destruction of these dogs? I ask that you retract that statement and/or present sources/some policy based argument to oppose this merger, which you have not done so far. Cavalryman (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC).
 * An apparent misunderstanding, now clarified in my comment above, as it was a general statement not an accusation. Your accusation that my argument is not policy based is simply not true. My argument is not only policy based, it is supported by RS and verifiable documentation maintained by the KC, a reputable breed registry which satisfies WP:V.  In fact, the KC approved the name & recognized the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a breed in 1975 after rejecting the first name submission, "Original Bull Terrier".  The "original" Bull Terrier was already recognized as a breed in 1948 whereas the Staffie was recognized 27 years later.  Futhermore, the History section of the Bull Terrier states (my bold underline):  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 Staffie article's History section makes no such claim: 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.  The Bull Terrier article would be the logical choice for merging, not the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, but again, I oppose a merge, and still maintain my position, with valid reason, to update this article and keep it for historic reference. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 20:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Atsme, I accept your word that your comment was not aimed directly at me, but there is an inference in it. Further, there is no benefit in quoting from articles, we don't WP:CITEWIKI.
 * I have presented some very respected reliable secondary sources that are cited across the encyclopedia (see some here ) and all that has been presented in response is the word of a couple of kennel clubs. I can see there is no turning your opinion here, but I reiterate none of this proposal's opposers have presented any policy based rationale for their opposition. Cavalryman (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC).

Further, the James Beaufoy book which is cited in the article 13 times states Cavalryman (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC).
 * And a couple of other sources in this article:
 * the Caroline Coile piece introduced into the article by you, states (bolding mine). This supports the merger as it says the SBT is the ancestor of all.
 * the Walter Fletcher piece, again added by you , states These are other early names for the SBT used alongside the "Bull and Terrier" name both directly above and in other sources cited.
 * Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC).

Break
I see you are now trying to sanitise the article of sources that do not agree with your incorrect point of view, if you continue in this fashion the history section will only be cited to the AKC. It has already been demonstrated here that you were incorrect when you said above, but I assume good faith in that you must have forgotten in the 30 months since then. But you are now cherrypicking sources to conform to your own notions, please stop. Cavalryman (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC).


 * Comment: to the extent that there are extant sources that address these as separate things, it seems useful to have separate articles. This is not a Pigeon/Dove situation, where we have a scientific consensus that there is a genetic identity to what were previously thought to be distinct species. There has not been a process to determine whether the AKC is a "bad" source for Wikipedia's purposes, so we apply it and leave it for the reader to weigh the value of the source. BD2412  T 19:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , yes I agree a trip to RSN is likely in the near future. But kennel clubs are not independent sources when it comes to dog breeds, they have vested interests in promoting breeds and certain breed histories in their respective countries, at a minimum they should be treated as primary sources. And why would we give greater weight to a North American kennel club over that of the kennel club from this breed's native country, the world's oldest kennel club, which has been involved with this breed for almost four decades longer? Particularly when their viewpoint is shared by nine independent, reliable secondary sources here or in the article (this one was removed by Atsme). There is a POV problem with this article. Cavalryman (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC).
 * If a trip to RSN is necessary, then take that trip. As it stands, we have no established consensus for disregarding AKC as a source. I would think primary sources for this purpose would be something like diaries of the breeders themselves. BD2412  T 23:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The only POV problem I see here is the insistence to include anectdotal material which equates into WP:OR. Anectdotal material is not suddenly factual simply because a RS included passing mention of anectdotal material. Furthermore, what happened in the 18th century involved unrecognized, undocumented dog types, and that does not belong in any lead of any modern recognized dog breed. It may be acceptable with intext attribution in the ancestry/historic sections of an article but not in the lead. We are obligated to use RS that have maintained historic breed documentation and high standards for their registration requirements of purebreds - for DECADES - because they have been monitoring these dog types, beginning with the inception of their organizations, including the information provided by reputable kennel clubs. I consider them to be mainstream vs alternative, so forgive me if I'm not as ready as some to accept alternative views by individual authors who may be depending on 19th century paintings and "he said/she said" evidence to base their arguments rather than DNA evidence. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 23:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Atsme, to round out the numbers here is a tenth source. Ten authors writing in ten publications with ten different publishers (and presumably ten editors and editorial staff). This is not about American vs British POVs either; Caroline Coile, Walter Fletcher, Arthur Jones, Chris Walkowicz, and Bonnie Wilcox are (or were) all Americans. David Alderton, James Beaufoy, Michael Billett, Ferelith Hamilton and Desmond Morris British. This is not anecdotal, these is what the preponderance of sources from some of the most respected writers in the field of cynology across the Atlantic state. Yes, if you continue to obstinately deny what these sources state then the article now has a POV problem and there is a perception that you were aware of what these sources state (you introduced two and cited a third extensively) and deliberately excluded, and in fact mis-cited these sources to perpetuate your POV.
 * BD2412, when I have the opportunity (when the rolling blackouts we are experiencing here stop) I will look to take this to RSN. But, I am quite surprised that you appear to be advocating to exclude what are impeccably well sourced content from this article. Cavalryman (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC).
 * Calvaryman, rather than bludgeon us with book titles and the names of authors, quote the exact phrases that support what you want to include. I see some quoted text in the citations. Not all of us have access to the books you are reading. The excerpts you listed below tell us nothing but passing mention by authors who don't appear to understand how the Stafford came to be a recognized breed, and provide no evidence to support their passing mention which is why I need to see the mention in context. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 06:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The nearly 200 year old ancestral history of the bull and terrier dog type is based on anecdotal information and should not be merged into the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article. That article already has an adequate accounting of the breed's ancestry. As I've already mentioned, you have not taken into account the fact that the British Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not the only presumed descendant of the early bull and terrier cross, whatever that cross may be since no one knows for certain. Other books and articles name other breeds with the same ancestral bull and terrier crosses. See American Pit Bull Terrier This type of dog, which was bred in the British Isles, became known as the bull and terrier. "Became known as" is simply common terminology for the evolutionary phase that spans some 200 years and should not be taken literally. American Staffordshire Terrier: Some varieties of Bull-and-terrier from the British Isles began to find their way into America as early as 1850. Read further toward the end of that same paragraph: The name Staffordshire Terrier was chosen, with the claim that the ancestors of the breed originally came from Staffordshire, England. The name of the breed was revised on January 1, 1969, to American Staffordshire Terrier to distinguish it from the British Staffordshire Bull Terrier, a separate breed from the Bull-type terrier group, recognized in England in 1935. Again, lots of "believed to be" and "claims" = anecdotal. The above material is cited to the following books:
 * Stahlkuppe, Joe (April 2, 2000). American Pit Bull Terrier Handbook. Barron's Educational Series. ISBN 0764147447,
 * Frome, Jane Hogg (2012-03-13). Staffordshire Bull Terrier. i5 Publishing. ISBN 9781593789879.
 * Smith, Alison; Smith, Lecturer in Contrinetal European Cinema Alison (2009). Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Collins. ISBN 9780007274284.
 * I consider DNA research, breed registry records, and kennel club records to be far more reliable than some of the individual dog books authored by dog enthusiasts who had nothing more to go on than breed registry info, local kennel club info and anecdotal information. I am quite confident that my position correctly follows what RS have published about the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier and that the article adequately covers the breed and its history without the need to merge unverifiable anecdotal material that is nearly 200 years old, and questionable at best. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 09:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Atsme, what you are saying is utterly bonkers. Are you seriously deriding professional writers in this field who have their work published by professional publishing houses as "enthusiasts"? By that reasoning no historian or journalist could ever be cited across Wikipedia. And are you claiming that citing secondary sources is OR or that authors of secondary sources themselves conduct OR? Because neither conforms to our policies, again what do we cite in articles? Cavalryman (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I see you have added Fleig as a reference, please verify exactly what it says. Cavalryman (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC).
 * Also, as you place greater weight in what kennel clubs state (a position I heartily disagree with) I have had a quick look at what some other kennel clubs that list a history:
 * the Australian National Kennel Council
 * the Canadian Kennel Club
 * the Société Centrale Canine (please forgive the machine translation)
 * All of these kennel clubs have at least three decades more experience with the breed, and hence breed records, than the AKC. We have been experiencing rolling power outages over the last couple of days, editing has been hard. Cavalryman (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC).


 * This proposal seems a nonstarter to me. The lead of bull and terrier says "The bull and terrier is an extinct type of dog". The Staffordshire Bull Terrier infobox says that "Bull and terrier" is an other name for that dog. Yet the Staffordshire Bull Terrier seems to be a breed that is alive and well, not extinct. Clearly these articles must, if they are accurate, be talking about two different "Bull and terrier"s, so the term needs to be more clearly disambiguated. Actually the lead of Staffordshire Bull Terrier contradicts its infobox, saying it's "a descendant of the now extinct bull and terrier". If that's true then the infobox needs to be corrected to say that "Bull and terrier" is Foundation stock rather than an other name. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wbm1058, no as explained here the mast majority of sources state the Bull and Terrier never became extinct, it was simply given the new name Staffordshire Bull Terrier to achieve kennel club recognition. Cavalryman (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC).
 * Cavalryman, you're still not making any sense to me. Why would you advocate propagating what you feel is misinformation, by merging that misinformation into another article? It would make more sense to me if you proposed correcting or deleting the misinformation rather than merging it. Note that I don't feel qualified myself to be able to determine whether a dog breed is extinct or not, and I'd just defer to the experts by saying "experts A and B" believe the breed is extinct while the opinion of "experts C and D" is that the dog was renamed "Staffordshire Bull Terrier". wbm1058 (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The information about the extinction appears to be disputed by the vast majority or sources, that these dogs existed under that name is what they state. Any merger would only bring reliably sourced information across, I believe the redirect should be retained because this was a name used for these dogs. Last night in the dark I made a quick start on a proposed rewrite. Cavalryman (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC).
 * Well said, Wbm1058. And I will add that the information about their origins is anecdotal and unverifiable. Yes, some authors wrote about the anecdotal origins that align with CM's POV but he's overlooking the fact that it's still anecdotal. Other RS align more closely with what I'm saying and includes documentation from historic breed registries that are considered mainstream because they make the rules for breed recognition and are the determining factor as to whether a breed is a breed and where it originated based on breeding records, DNA information and other documented reports accumulated for decades. The most we have to go on dating back 200 years or so is the "belief" that the Stafford is a descendant of early bull and terrier crosses based primarily on their looks - it's anecdotal. Those claims are based on photographs, heresay and 19th century paintings, for Pete's sake. I saw a photograph of a young man who looks exactly like Elvis Presley so it must be his son!! It was published in multiple books by different authors which makes it...what? At least the notable breed registries have DNA evidence which I included in the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article. That article adequately covers the breed's ancestry, and I can't understand why CM refuses to understand the fundamental basics of anecdotal evidence dating back 200 years, and what constitutes verifiability of a modern breed as a purebred that is recognized by several reputable breed registries. Yes, I question unverifiable reports and my own beliefs - I'm thorough and pragmatic in my way of thinking - and I remain confident that I've done what is best for our readers. We do not have a clear consensus to merge, so why is Cavalryman attempting to merge bits and pieces of this article into the Stafford article before this discussion is even closed? I have reverted his edits. The basis of his argument is still grounded in anecdotal evidence; i.e., believed to be, claimed to be....none of it factually verifiable. His arguement fails WP:V. Pinging active editors:, ,  please weigh-in. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 22:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Atsme, this is bordering on crazy. By your logic your POV is unverified. It seems almost all kennel clubs that include a historical summary of the breed also disagree with your POV. Cavalryman (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC).


 * , with this edit you added D. Fleig and Vero Shaw as sources to the lead. As requested above, please can you verify exactly what those sources state? Also, can you provide page numbers? Cavalryman (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC).

Possible rewrite
Below is a very rough cut of how I think this lead and history section could look if merged. It was written by ipad in the dark so please excuse some of the errors, also I have not progressed beyond 1938, obviously it needs to discuss the breed's proliferation around the world. Cavalryman (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC).

The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a British breed of short-haired terrier of medium size. It originated in the Black Country of the English Midlands. The breed was previously known by a number of names, including the Bull and Terrier, the Bull Terrier, the Pit dog, Half and Half and the Bulldog Terrier; it was created by crossbreeding the extinct Old English Bulldog and the extinct Old English Terrier.

After the introduction of legislation criminalising dogfighting in 1835 and again in 1911, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was more commonly kept as a companion dog. Its history as a fighting dog made it difficult for the breed to gain recognition by the British Kennel Club; it was eventually recognised in 1935.


 * History

The Staffordshire Bull Terrier was developed in England in the 19th century specifically to participate in organised dog fights. While deliberately pitting dogs against one another in staged fights had been known in England for centuries, until the 19th century it had not enjoyed the widespread popularity of the blood sports of bull and bear-baiting. From the beginning of the 19th century the popularity of baiting sports began to wane in favour of organised dog fights, which conducted under strict rules. The popularity of dog fighting increased further with the passage of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835 which made blood sports illegal throughout the United Kingdom. This legislation effectively eliminated bull and bear baiting, as the large arenas required to conduct these blood sports were easily policed by authorities. Deprived of one of their favourite pastimes, thousands throughout the country turned to dog fighting which could be conducted clandestinely. The Black Country of Staffordshire and parts of Warwickshire was to become the stronghold of these fights. With the increasing popularity of dog fights, a new variety of dog more suited to that blood sport began to be developed.

There are two theories about the Staffordshire Bull Terrier's development; the first and most commonly held theory is the breed was developed by cross breeding the Old English Bulldog with one or more terrier varieties. The aggressive, courageous and tenacious Old English Bulldog had been developed in the preceding centuries specifically for bull-baiting; it was very well suited for this task but experience showed that it was not quick or agile enough when pitted against another dog in staged fights. In order to produce a lighter, faster and more agile dog which retained the required courage and tenacity, the breeders of these dogs outcrossed their Old English Bulldogs with local terriers. It is usually stated that the terrier used for these crosses was the Old English Terrier, but it is likely a variety of terriers were used by different breeders depending upon local availability. The result of these crosses was the emergence of a new variety of dog which was known by a number of different names including the Bull and Terrier, the Pit dog, the Half and Half and the Bulldog Terrier, later the name Bull Terrier became the most common.

A second theory held by some cynologists is the Old English Bulldog was never cross bred with lighter terriers but instead remained pure, being selectively bred for smaller size, greater speed and superior agility. These early Bulldogs were developed from large mastiffs, bred down in size to be low-slung with wider faces and undershot jaws. The primary evidence for this theory is the similarities in appearance between Old English Bulldogs depicted contemporary paintings and the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

The Staffordshire Bull Terrier was most commonly referred to as "Bull Terrier" for over a century, but in the 1860s dog breeder James Hinks began had began to exhibit another variety at conformation shows throughout the country under that name. In the 1850s Hinks had developed his Bull Terrier by cross breeding the original breed with English White Terriers and Dalmatians to develop a more refined all-white coloured variety. In 1874 Hinks' Bull Terriers were recognised by the Kennel Club, being listed in their first published stud book.

Dog fighting with Staffordshire Bull Terriers remained relatively common in Britain throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The passage of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 further criminalised organised dog fighting but fights were known to continue until the 1930s. Due to the continued close association of these dogs with illegal dog fights, the Kennel Club refused to seriously consider recognising the breed. It was not until the early 1930s that serious attempts were made by devotees of the breed to gain Kennel Club recognition, the most instrumental individual in these efforts was breeder Joseph Dunn. Throughout 1932 and 1933 Dunn, with the assistance of another breeder Joe Mallen and the actor Tom Walls, made continued entreaties to the Kennel Club, these efforts were initially derided. In 1935 a variety show for the breed was held on the blowing green of the Conservative Club at Cradley Heath, and after the success of the show it was decided to form a breed club. Following this the Kennel Club approved a draft standard and in June what was to become the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club was formed in a meeting at the Old Cross Guns pub in Cradley Heath where the breed standard was approved by the membership.

Initially the breed club tried to have the breed recognised under the name "Original Bull Terrier", but this was rejected by the Kennel Club as it has too close to the Hinks type Bull Terrier. It was decided to add the name of the traditional stronghold of these dogs, so they became the "Staffordshire Bull Terrier"; that having first appeared in 1930 in advertisements for dogs of the breed. This name was also opposed by devotees of Hinks type Bull Terriers, who wanted the breed to be called the "Staffordshire Terrier", but the Kennel Club overruled their objections. When the Kennel Club granted official pedigree standard later in the year 147 dogs were listed in the stud book, by 1938 there were 750 dogs registered.

In the years following the Second World War, pedigree Staffordshire Bull Terriers were exported to most European counties, Australia, Canada, New Zealand

In 2017, a genome-wide study suggested that all of the bull and terrier–type dogs, including the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, map back to the terriers of Ireland and to origins which date to the period 1860–1870.
 * DNA analysis