Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/Archive 4

Article's neutrality
There appears to be a concerted effort to exclude any information from this article that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was the very same dog breed as the Bull and a Terrier, which was just an earlier name for this breed. The vast majority of sources about the Staffordshire Bull Terrier make this claim or claims supporting it. Here are some already discussed in the above section:
 * Added 24 March 2022.


 * Added 22 March 2022.




 * Added 24 March 2022.


 * Added here from below, 19 February 2022.


 * Added 22 March 2022.




 * Added 30 March 2022.


 * Added 30 March 2022.


 * Added here from below, 27 February 2022.
 * Added here from below, 27 February 2022.


 * Added 4 March 2022.


 * Added 14 March 2022.


 * Added 22 March 2022.


 * Added here from below, 19 February 2022.




 * Added 14 March 2022.
 * Added 14 March 2022.
 * Added 14 March 2022.


 * Added 22 March 2022.
 * Added 27 February 2022.
 * Added 27 February 2022.


 * Added 27 February 2022.
 * Added 27 February 2022.


 * Added 27 February 2022.
 * Added 27 February 2022.


 * Added 27 February 2022.
 * Added 27 February 2022.


 * Added 14 March 2022.
 * Added 14 March 2022.
 * Added 14 March 2022.
 * Added 14 March 2022.


 * Added 22 March 2022.


 * Added 22 March 2022.


 * Added 24 March 2022.


 * Added 24 March 2022.


 * Added 14 March 2022.
 * Added 14 March 2022.
 * Added 14 March 2022.


 * Added 24 March 2022.

And here are some other sources presented above that support this:




 * Added 24 March 2022.




 * Added 27 February 2022.
 * Added 27 February 2022.


 * Added 24 March 2022.


 * Added 22 March 2022.




 * Added 27 February 2022.
 * Added 27 February 2022.


 * Added 22 March 2022.


 * Added 22 March 2022.


 * Added 22 March 2022.


 * Added 22 March 2022.


 * Added 14 March 2022.


 * Added 24 March 2022.


 * Added 24 March 2022.


 * Added 22 March 2022.

And here are what is stated by some kennel clubs who provide any historical overview about the breed:
 * the American Kennel Club -  (I can not currently read any text in this article, but it was copied by me on 3 September 2021)
 * the Australian National Kennel Council -
 * the Canadian Kennel Club -  Quote expanded 25 March 2022.
 * the Dutch Kennel Club -  (machine translation) Added 23 March 2022.
 * The Kennel Club -  Added here 19 February 2022.
 * the Société Centrale Canine -  (please forgive the machine translation)

This information is being excluded principally because this article published on the American Kennel Club's website states

As long as this information is excluded from the article, and given commensurate weight as accorded by the what the preponderance of the sources state, this article does not present a NPOV about this breed's ancestry. Cavalryman (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC).


 * the comment below was added over six weeks after the above post. Cavalryman (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC).
 * The following is in response to the recently added fringe material, misinterpretations, and out-of-context material which may or may not cover it all. The fringe is already included in the History section of the article but one must first read the article and understand what is being presented to know that it's included - the material was also wrongfully tagged OR and SYNTH, obviously based on a misunderstanding of breed standards, the purpose they serve, and what constitutes acceptance of a purebred dog as a new breed, which appears to be an issue relative to CIR.  There is currently a discussion at No original research/Noticeboard.  Following are undeniable instances of fringe theory in the article:
 * Devotees preferred the original bull and terrier type over Hink's Bull Terrier, and remained loyal to their preferred type, which became the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier of the same ancestry as the Bull Terrier.[12]
 * According to The Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America, the Manchester Terrier as well as the now-extinct English White Terrier were used in the bull and terrier crosses, as were varieties of the old working terriers.[16] The Stafford was considered the other bull and terrier but was not as readily accepted by either the KC or AKC because of its fighting ancestry.
 * The Kennel Club describes the Bull Terrier as "the direct descendant of the original bull-and-terrier cross made in England, specifically to bait bulls and, later to fight in pits".[19] Their description of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier states that the breed shares "the same ancestry as the Bull Terrier, i.e. Bulldog crossed with the Black and Tan terrier, and was developed as a fighting dog."
 * Staffordshire is considered one of the main origins of the Bull Terrier breed of dogs. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier developed in what was then called the Black Country of Staffordshire and parts of Warwickshire. Bulldog and terrier crosses produced courageous dogs with agility and endurance. In the beginning, such crosses were referred to as "Bull & Terrier", but a new breed developed over time that became known as bull terrier.
 * The late A.W.A Cairns, former editor of the online Stafford Magazine published by Southern Counties Staffordshire Bull Terrier Society,[24][25] wrote, "Kennel Club recognition of the breed is shrouded in mystery. Recognition was announced in the April 1935 Kennel Gazette in the name of Staffordshire Bull Terrier. There was no explanation as to how this came about. No Breed Club or Breed Standard existed."[26]
 * There are unsupported theories or opinions that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the original bull and terrier rather than one of several descendants that have been standardized as modern purebreds without taking into consideration important evolutionary factors considered to be "very often misquoted and misunderstood."[27] The standard for the modern Stafford aligns with the breed's transformation from its bull and terrier ancestry as a fighting dog to a modern conformation show dog.[27]
 * To some extent, Cairns aligns with Beaufoy "in the context of Kennel Club recognition the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a relatively 'new breed'".[26] Cairns believed a "Stafford-like animal existed at the turn of the 19th Century" and admitted, with the "possibility for slight prejudice", that "the only modern dog of this type is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier".
 * Cairns further clarified that the pedigree inscribed on the plaque of the Crib and Rosa painting, specifically the words "the famous Staffordshire bitch", is not suggesting that it was a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, but that "it could be concluded that animals of that type, existed in that county before 1816."[26]
 * The second theory is that two different types of bull terriers were developed between 1860–1870 by using different types of bull and terrier crosses.[21]
 * The second type of bull terrier that evolved from the split suggests a breed that originated by crossing the thickly muscled Old English Bulldog, known for its stamina, strength and courage, with the smaller Black and Tan Terrier, known to be feisty, agile, and lithe.[23][28]
 * In May 1935, the KC approved the name "Staffordshire Bull Terrier"; the first name requested, "Original Bull Terrier", had been rejected.[12][28] In June 1935, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club was formed during a meeting at the Old Cross Guns pub in Cradley Heath; a breed standard was approved the same day, and further shows were held that year.[28]
 * The NPOV tag has been weaponized to force this GA into a GAR with the goal being to include an unacceptable fringe POV that is clearly violative of UNDUE WEIGHT and OR. All substantial theories are included in the article per WP:PAG. Spamming this TP with sources that support my position rather than the fringe views is certainly not a preponderance of what sources state. CONTEXTMATTERS. No RS source has made such an illogical claim as a statement of fact and if they did, they are clearly not a RS. The very first Beaufoy source in the long list of sources above demonstrates CIR, and being unable to distinguish the difference between figure of speech and statement of fact.  One's cousin cannot be one's ancestor (see my list of sources in the GAR proper).  I won't add anymore sources knowing that plenty of RS are available to those readers seeking further information. I can simply cite almost all of the sources in the long list above and present the material in context to support the included material, which I've already done.  Most RS unequivocally dismiss or contradict the cherrypicked claim and illogical opinions that are based purely on anecdotal evidence - they're selling books, for Pete's sake.


 * I'll start with Beaufoy's book, where it's obvious that his statement is an exclamation; i.e., a figure of speech (!!). When read in context, beginning with the 3rd page of Chapter 1 under the subtitle Bull and Terrier Dogs Beaufoy explains two theories relative to the ancestral origins of the pedigreed modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier - (a) that it was never crossed with terriers or  (b) that it was crossed with terriers. Either way, it's based purely on anecdotal evidence and speculation. Beaufoy also writes about the 1816 Crib and Rosa painting: "So how did they go about producing these dogs? There is a theory that the original Bulldog was not crossed with a smaller breed of dog, but was simply selectively bred for small size and lighter build. Furthermore, the “layback” in the Bulldog muzzle, which helped the dog to breathe when he was pinning a bull, seems to have been selectively bred out by the undoubtedly skilled breeders of the day. ¶There is interesting evidence to support this theory. Abraham Cooper’s painting of 1816, entitled Crib and Rosa, depicts two Bulldogs. ‘Rosa’ came from the kennels that were breeding what were considered to be the finest Bulldogs at the time. A study of the painting clearly shows that the dog’s conformation closely resembles that of the modern Stafford in the body, quarters, loins, legs, feet and tail. The coat colors depicted in contemporary paintings of Bulldogs are also very similar to those of the Stafford of today.¶If this theory is true, then the Staffordshire is descended from pure Bulldog bloodlines without any Terrier influence." We already know the dependability rating of visual ID. Sorry, but we simply cannot state speculation and theory as statements of fact in WikiVoice or violate UNDUE - that would be a NPOV.  Bottomline, there is not one supported statement of fact about the SBT being the "renamed bull and terrier"– it's all based on opinions, speculation and fringe theories that are not supported by facts.  I contacted the manager of the TKC library and requested verification of the Staffordshire's breed history and the response supports what I've been saying. See this diff.  Atsme  💬 📧 19:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to stay clear of this, but was pinged. I'm convinced by the documentation provided here by . A couple of observations/questions:
 * it's not unusual for a breed to be listed as "extinct" when in fact it continues under a different name
 * if the bull and terrier is actually extinct (i.e., all members of that breed or type died without issue), when and by what mechanism did the extinction take place? (it must have been within the last century or so, so we'd expect such an event to be well documented)
 * if the Staffie was in some way different from the b-and-t, how were the changes brought about, when and by whom? (again, we'd expect an event in the twentieth century to be fairly thoroughly documented)
 * in any rewrite (I've read Cavalryman's draft), we shouldn't refer to the thing by a name it didn't have at the time (better to call them "these dogs", "dogs of this kind" or whatever circumlocution pleases you best).
 * I haven't read every word of the section above, so please excuse me if all this has already been said. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , the AKC link you can't access is archived here (for others: go down the page to History, then 'Read more'). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , many thanks. I should have searched for an archived link. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC).

A link provided to an article with no author taking responsibility, no references cited as to where this information came from, yet some believe that this information is in some way "reliable". 182.239.146.186 (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * In response to CM's comment that "There appears to be a concerted effort to exclude any information from this article", there definitely is an effort, but I question your allegation that it's a "concerted" one. Of course there is an effort, and I'm surprised more haven't joined in to prevent the addition of confusing fringe material in an article that wears the GA emblem. If the fringe isn't bad enough, it gets even worse when it's based on anecdotal accounts about undocumented crosses that were never considered a breed. Bull and terrier crosses represent a type of dog that dates back to the days of bloodsports in the mid-1800s. DNA evidence proves that bull and terrier crosses are the result of undocumented crossbreeding. What you are trying to convince others is that it's factual information based on verifiable documentation about the breed's origins, when in reality the material is nothing more than passing mention of anecdotal accounts in some dog books which makes it noncompliant with WP:V, WP:FRINGE and WP:OR - and you are challenging what is currently in the article - tagged it as having NPOV issues - when in fact, the material currently in the article is based on DNA evidence and documentation from reputable/reliable breed registries. The AKC History section states (my bold underline): The story of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a relatively brief one in the grand scheme of canine history, but it can be confused by the several different names hung on the breed at various times.  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. We do not want to introduce confusing aliases into this GA stamped article which is what you are attempting to do. Furthermore, there is strong DNA evidence - science based evidence - about the Stafford's ancestral origins that is already included in the article. Genomic Analyses Reveal the Influence of Geographic Origin, Migration, and Hybridization on Modern Dog Breed Development clearly states (my bold underline): The ability to determine a time of hybridization for recent admixture events can refine sparse historical accounts of breed formation. For example, when dog fighting was a popular form of entertainment, many combinations of terriers and mastiff or bully-type breeds were crossed to create dogs that would excel in that sport. In this analysis,  all of the bull and terrier crosses map to the terriers of Ireland and date to 1860-1870.  This coincides perfectly with the historical descriptions that,  though they do not clearly identify all breeds involved,  report the popularity of dog contests in Ireland and the lack of stud book veracity,  hence undocumented crosses, during this era of breed creation  (Lee, 1894). Look at the dark blue section of Figure 1 - Cladogram of 161 Domestic Dog Breeds.  There are many theories about how various dog breeds began, but theories that are not backed by science or verifiable facts are fringe theories. This article is sourced to science-based information backed by factual documentation published by reputable breed registries and kennel clubs that have for years maintained stud books, conducted DNA testing, and accumulated reliable documentation, all of which was required before putting their stamp on the breed as a purebred.   Atsme  💬 📧 01:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * please do not remove the POV tag from the article and allow this discussion proceed, it has only just commenced. This and the above proposal are not mutually exclusive, yes I remain unconvinced by any of the oppose arguments above but this article must follow the sources. Cavalryman (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC).


 * Notice: I opened a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard  Atsme 💬 📧 06:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , what exactly about the genomic analysis completely refutes what is being said here? I believe it actually supports the above sources. Apart from the timelines being a couple of decades apart the paper seems to support that all the breeds descend from a common time and crossing of two dog types. Further, the more detailed sources on the subject state whilst the Old English Terrier is the most commonly claimed terrier variety used, most likely whatever terriers were available or best suited to the task were used. These could have been Irish. This study seems to compliment the above sources and as can be seen by my very rough draft above, I am in no way advocating it be removed from the article. Cavalryman (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC).
 * To answer your question, the descendants, aka forerunners (century old ancesters of unverified crossbreeds), cannot be the exact same breed that is a modern dog breed renamed, especially when official breed registries refused to recognize them as a breed. Refer to the DNA results and cladogram which completely supports my position. The ancesters were undocumented pit-fighting bulldog (possibly mastiff)  x terrier from Ireland crosses - which is another reason we need to keep the standalone articles of extinct dog types for historic reference.  Granted, I initially agreed that a redirect was warranted for Old English Terrier back when you proposed the merge to Black and Tan Terrier but in retrospect, I think it was a mistake that needs to be revisited along with other merges/redirects that are similar in nature. The English Stafford (not to be confused with the AmStaff) was developed for confirmation showing and a much different temperament from the bulldog/mastiff/terrier crosses that were bred for fighting purposes - bloodsports were made illegal and the breeding types had to be changed.  A century later, those descendants are much different types of dogs. There are 3 sections in the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article that accurately describes the breed's ancestral beginnings.  The Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Terrier (which is a dab page), and American Staffordshire Terrier all have history sections that mention the bull x terrier cross. The AmStaff article states: 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. AKC further supports that position: When it comes to the bull-type terrier breeds, all can agree that the common component in their makeup was the Bulldog. (Note that the Bulldog of 200 years ago was a vastly different, more ferocious creature than the lovable “sourmugs” of today.) Argument begins when breed experts try to nail down which preexisting terrier breeds reside in the AmStaff’s genetic background. Some suggest that such extinct breeds as the White English Terrier and Black-and-Tan Terrier were part of the genetic mix that led to the creation of the Staffordshire Terrier, forerunner of the AmStaff.  DNA supports what AKC is stating and in no way supports what you have proposed to do with the English Stafford.  I think we would better served to spend our time improving the Bull and terrier article and possibly even restoring some of the redirects and merged historic articles because we are misleading readers by redirecting or merging into a particular breed when several modern breeds are considered the forerunners.  Atsme  💬 📧 18:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Atsme, I am not sure I follow. Neither quote you have provided is inconsistent with "Bull and Terrier" being an old name for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. And as shown at the top of this section, the AKC believes they are one and the same also. Nothing cited here is vastly inconsistent with these two being one.
 * Also, please can you answer my question in the above section? Cavalryman (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC).

Please see discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cavalryman (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Cavalryman, ask yourself this one question: if SBT is the bull and terrier as you're suggesting, then how do you explain the other 5 distinct modern breeds that are also descendants? DNA evidence supports the genetic mapping and commonalities of those distinct breeds. You can't just take one breed out of the mix and claim it's the bull and terrier. The world is not flat.
 * 1) The bull and terrier was never a bonafide breed;
 * 2) The name is simply a descriptor for a heterogeneous group of dogs that may include purebreds involving different breeds, as well as dogs believed to be crosses of those breeds, whatever they might be;
 * 3) The progeny resulted from undocumented bull and terrier hybrid crosses during the era of breed creation (1860–1870);
 * 4) DNA results corroborate that "bull and terrier" crossbreeds or hybrids are considered the forerunner of several modern standardised breeds.
 * 5) The Bull Terrier was the first recognized breed (1885 AKC) that resulted from the "bull and terrier" hybrids and was officially recognized as such:
 * You really need to drop this isssue and allow things to return to normal.  Atsme 💬 📧 08:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Atsme, no one claims the German Shepherd is a type just because a number of breeds descend from it. Re your other points they have already been addressed. So long as you insist reliably sourced information be excluded from the article it has a POV issue.
 * Something that has not been addressed is Dieter Fleig, I have asked you six times now to please verify the exact text of the source and page number you are citing.
 * This really is a shame, it had been my intention to ask you to collaborate in attempting to bring this article to FA standard after the above proposal concluded, it would have opened the article to a very rich history section. Instead the article is now marked with page issues. Please address the Fleig issue, otherwise a verification needed tag will need to be added. Cavalryman (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC).
 * All I remember about Fleig is you wanting a page number, which I provided and moved on. I have since removed the citation because it was a time sink, and I no longer had access to the source. I also didn't exclude any legitimate information from the article, in fact I've been adding more. Oh, and instead of tagging the whole article, use section tags or inline tags, and be specific as to what you consider a NPOV issue.  Atsme 💬 📧 07:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All I remember about Fleig is you wanting a page number, which I provided and moved on. I have since removed the citation because it was a time sink, and I no longer had access to the source. I also didn't exclude any legitimate information from the article, in fact I've been adding more. Oh, and instead of tagging the whole article, use section tags or inline tags, and be specific as to what you consider a NPOV issue.  Atsme 💬 📧 07:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry Atsme but no, this article still has POV issues, two of the three contributors to this discussion have said as much, so I have restored the POV tag. Please achieve consensus here at the neutrality discussion before removing the tag again. Above you have ten independent sources that state these two are one, so the article still gives insufficient weight to that history. And here are two more:





Further, do you have a source that supports the sentence ? If not I presume you won't object to a Original research inline tag being added. Cavalryman (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC).


 * Oh, my! I can't seem to find "bull and terrier" anywhere in this cladogram, nor do I see anything in the cited Staffordshire Bull Terrier that refers to bull and terrier as a breed. The DNA study states: In 2017, a genome-wide study suggested that all of the bull and terrier–type dogs, including the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and five other distinct breeds, 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.[10][29][30]
 * 1) What part of "bull and terrier-type dogs" tells you it's a bona fide breed?
 * 2) What part of "including the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and five other distinct breeds" justifies Jane Buckland's statement that "The original bull-and-terrier fighting dogs remained unrecognised until 1935, when they were finally registered as the Staffordshire bull terriers"?
 * 3) What happens to the ancestry of the other five distinct breeds? Were they shipped to Earth from Mars? Do we Wikilink their ancestral heritage to Staffordshire Bull Terrier? How is that not absurd? Staffords underwent generational transformation (evolution) for nearly a century and went from being bull and terrier-type fighting dogs to being conformation show dogs. All one has to do is read this article, and Bull and terrier to find the answers.  Atsme 💬 📧 22:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Atsme, given the vast majority of writers and kennel clubs state Bull and Terrier is an early name for Staffordshire Bull Terrier, it is unsurprising the cladogram does not list it. And yes we have discussed the genomic study also, it in no way contradicts the other sources. Also have you bothered to read what Rawdon Lee actually wrote in 1894?
 * To answer your questions:
 * You are attempting equivocation
 * You are quoting yourself, not the source
 * If the merger had proceeded yes we would have, but as JLAN says above we would not have referred to them as the SBT before they assumed that name (although many sources do).
 * Now about this edit, please can you quote the entire paragraph that you drew the "very often misquoted and misunderstood" from and explain how that is not quoted out of context? And why did you cite the same article twice? Also, please provide the exact text that supports the line? Cavalryman (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC).
 * In response to your question, see pg 30 of the article titled "Evolution of The Staffordshire Bull Terrier Breed Standard". Surely you understand that the evolution (development) of a breed involves standardization; therefore, it requires breed standards, keeping documented pedigrees over generations, experimentation of crosses, etc. Perhaps the following will shine a brighter light on why your argument fails verifiability, and if it doesn't, then we're obviously at the point of you not hearing it. See The Bull Terrier in Sport And Show - History & Anecdote and the picture of "Trusty" (2nd page in the preview): the caption reads: "The earliest Bull-and-Terrier whose name has come to us. Whelped about 1800. From a painting believed to have been done from life." <–– it's the white Hinks dog look alike.  The key phrase I used in my search: judge and breeder Joseph Dunn to achieve recognition. The paragraph I'm citing from the book is in the last subsection of the chapter on Staffordshire Bull Terrier (lacks page numbers). It is under the sub-title Kennel Club Recognition, (the next page is a photo of CH Gentleman Jim). It describes how/when the breed attained UK Kennel Club recognition on 25 May 1935, crediting Joseph Dunn & Joe Mallan for the groundwork. It explains the Bull Terrier Club objected to their use of "original", so they dropped that word from their name. The Kennel Club also objected to their use of "original" when they applied for recognition. (See the chapter "From Fighting Dog To Show Dog And Pet" in Beaufoy's book) which states how they tried to register the new breed as the "Original Bull Terrier" but it was rejected because the Hinks bred dogs were already registered Bull Terrier. The evidence cannot be made any clearer than that. Again, see the AKC article; it "was a rough outline, a starting point for several breeds..." As for the Staffordshire, in the article, The original lines explained it states in Chapter IV, Modern Records (my bold underline): Although the Staffordshire has been in existence for such a long period, it is only comparatively recently that any authentic and reliable records have been kept, and  it is next to impossible to trace back the pedigrees of individual dogs further than ten to fifteen years.  The record-keeping years when "most of the leading dogs of the time were registered" was from May, 1935, to Dec., 1937 so the Stafford's time line debunks those fringe claims. The Bull Terrier was recognized by AKC in 1885, long before the Stafford: Bulldogs proved too slow and plodding to provide much entertainment in these gruesome affairs. Thus began the process of crossing Bulldogs with terriers to produce fighters with the power of a Bulldog and the animation and fiery spirit of terriers. Among the breeds created in this way was the Bull Terrier.  Sorry, but "flat-earth" theories published in multiple books do not make it true, and the same applies here.  Atsme  💬 📧 22:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC) added text for clarity 04:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Atsme, I will attempt to work through your various points:
 * I think your notion of what defines a breed and its development is not based on reliable sources:
 * The FCI states
 * Juliet Clutton-Brock (who the FCI credit for inspiring their definition) states
 * The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations states
 * Nowhere do any of them say a breed "requires breed standards, keeping documented pedigrees over generations, experimentation of crosses, etc."
 * Where in that link does it say that painting is Hinks-type Bull Terrier look alike? Is that just your impression? Pure white SBTs are known and allowed. Also James Hinks was born in 1829 so anyone suggesting he bred Trusty in 1800 is a fool.
 * We have already discussed how the Kennel Club rejected the proposed name "Original Bull Terrier" at the behest of Bull Terrier devotees, Beaufoy is also very firmly of the view that the B&T was renamed the SBT. Other sources above also discuss this.
 * The AKC states In other words, Bull and Terrier was a former name for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. That one article published on the AKC's webpage about a different breed of dog should not be given greater weight than almost every other source about the subject (including THE AKC).
 * You have bolded the wrong end of the sentence, is the relevant part. In other words, the breed existed well before 1935. I wonder what it was called back then? So you have found another source that corroborates the SBT existed well before it received Kennel Club recognition.
 * And your last quote does not refute any of this, yes Hinks started with what was known at the time as B&Ts and introduced other breeds to create his Bull Terrier.
 * As you have not really addressed my last points about your most recent edit to the article would you object to me reverting it? The quoted text is about misinterpretations of historical information to justify amending the breed standard in the US, not the breed history. Cavalryman (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC).

Resolving the remaining differences
Oh, my. I just took a break from my usual work to check in here to see how the POV dispute resolved, and I see it hasn't yet. Sigh. Generally I don't think many good article authors are happy to see such templates lingering on their articles for such a long time. Can we narrow down what the problem is? The above is a little TL;DR for me, but I think the dispute revolves around the section. If I'm correct, Cavalryman, could you please move the POV tag to the top of that section, or would you mind if I did? If I'm off base about that section being the section you're still unhappy with, or if there are POV issues in other sections of the article, could you briefly say which ones? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * wbm1058, given this affects the the lead, infobox and entire history section from early history through to recognition I think the top banner is far more appropriate. I agree that the impending original research template that I have being trying to avoid through discussion above will more appropriately be confined to its section. But if consensus is to move the template, then it should be moved to the top of the history section, although before doing so it should be noted that two if the three contributors to the above discussion agree the article has POV issues. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC).
 * OK, let's start with the infobox. This should just be a place for facts, not opinions. What facts presented in the infobox do you dispute? wbm1058 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The alternate names parameter remains empty when numerous sources have been presented saying directly that the following names were historical names (pre-1935) for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier:
 * "Bull and Terrier" - twelve sources
 * "Pit dog" - six sources
 * "Bull Terrier" - five sources (Beaufoy and Morris both say it outside of their above quotes)
 * "Half and half" (or derivation "half bred") - three sources
 * A number of other names have been mentioned once or twice but these are the main ones. No reliable sources have been offered in any discussion that counter that these dogs were formerly known by these names. Cavalryman (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC).

"No reliable sources have been offered in any discussion that counter that these dogs were formerly known by these names." Ergo, that affects the lede of the article, does it not? This disagreement is very simple - what do RS state, and what do they not. Either the RS issue is resolved, or the current GA status of this article needs review. The cart does not go before the horse. 14.2.195.135 (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: this IP appears to be a SPA in Australia, which is where Cavalryman is located.  Atsme  💬 📧 15:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The infobox uses Infobox dog breed. The applicable parameter is  : Other names by which the breed is known by English speakers. THIS version of the article lists these former or historical names as Other names, misleadingly implying these are other current names. There is no "former" or "historical" names parameter in this infobox. Manual of Style/Infoboxes says "An infobox... summarizes key features of the page's subject. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance... exclude any unnecessary content." Given the apparent controversy about historical names, I'd say that this is unnecessary content for the infobox. If you disagree, you need to first obtain a consensus to add a "former" or "historical" names parameter to the template. Former names can of course be discussed in the article body, probably "below the fold". I see no POV issues with the infobox. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agh, but there is no controversy. The only controversy is that on this talk page, no reliable sources are in doubt. Cavalryman (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC).
 * Cavalryman, I'll take that as acknowledgement that the infobox is OK.
 * I just cleaned up some stray punctuation from the lead section. What are the neutrality/POV problem(s) with the lead section? I see that it discusses the beginnings (ancestral origins) of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delayed response, my work has taken me to a place of extremely intermittent communications. Before moving on, you have cited an, would you do me the courtesy of explaining which reliable sources you believe make this controversial and why? Cavalryman (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean the apparent controversy on this talk page. I'm not aware of any sources describing a controversy and explaining what facts are in dispute. The lead says "It wasn't until 1935 that The Kennel Club accepted Staffordshire Bull Terriers into their stud book with established breed standards". This article is about a "purebreed" whose history began in 1935. I'm saying the infobox only needs to give the names for this dog from 1935 on. Any historical names from before 1935 are out of the main scope and should be left out of the infobox. I don't see how that editorial decision can be interpreted as a "point-of-view" problem. Unless you want to change the scope of the article. Maybe that's what the controversy is about – the scope of the article. Honestly, I still don't have a great handle on what the controversy is – I just have a sense that there is one here. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe an analogy will help make the point. We don't list United Colonies as an "other name" for the United States in the infobox for that article. That's simply "too much information" for the infobox. But there is a linked mention of United Colonies in the history section of that article. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * wbm1056, is your understanding that a "purebreed" is different to a normal "breed"? I have provided some definitions of what a breed is here, there is no mention of breed standards or stud books. Do we have any sources describing the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a "purebreed"?
 * Also, have any sources been provided that state the Staffordshire Bull Terrier only came into being in 1935? Nearly every source I have seen states the breed dates from the 19th century.
 * I do not believe your analogy is apt but I would imagine that the United Colonies would be placed in the  parameter of Infobox dog breed, they are not the same country but the United Colonies contributed something to the creation of the United States. Cavalryman (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It's time to wrap this up - you keep moving the goal posts. The bull and terrier was not officially renamed to Staffordshire Bull Terrier by either TKC or AKC (the 2 oldest official breed registries in the world), or the Canadian registry, the UKC, and FCI. The history lessons are over, Cavalryman; the banter between you and wbm1058 is getting us nowhere. Strawman arguments and stonewalling is not productive, it's disruptive. I have provided multiple RS that dispute your theories, regardless of how many books you cite for the material you've quoted out of context. What you're doing is OR in your attempt to make a fringe view factual. You have conflated figurative speech as statements of fact, and that speaks volumes to WP:CIR. You have failed to pinpoint a specific NPOV issue in either Bull and terrier or this article. I've grown weary of you moving the goal post with the same failed arguments. Sorry, but speculation and fringe theories will not be stated in WikiVoice in either article. Bull and terrier will not be merged into Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and this article will remain a GA, unless you file a GAR, and the reviewers determine otherwise. I'm pinging so he will be aware of what's going on here. Hopefully, I won't have to remind him of the issues you created during that review.  Atsme 💬 📧 22:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, can someone explain what the issue is in layman terms? FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Scroll up to the collapsed Merger proposal: Bull and terrier and read what was proposed.  Atsme 💬 📧 22:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit too over my head for me to give a valid opinion, but I'll keep an eye on the discussions. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Atsme, the Kennel Club, the American Kennel Club and the Canadian Kennel Club all state explicitly that Bull and Terrier is an old name for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier (see here), your repeated statements otherwise are falsification. Re goalposts, I would urge you to read the last sentence of the first post in this section, this has not been met.
 * FunkMonk, it is good to see you. It was their contribution to the above proposal that led me to file the SPI on our mutual friend Blockhouse. I am sorry you have been dragged into this, in a nutshell one editor is aggressively preventing information corroborated by the mass of sources at the top of this section being included in the article. Cavalryman (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC).

Purebreds

 * is your understanding that a "purebreed" is different to a normal "breed"? This seems to be a point of controversy on Wikipedia. Purebred and Breed are separate articles. If there were no distinction, then Purebred would redirect to Breed and that redirect would be tagged with R from alternative name or similar. purebred: An animal which has genuine parents of the same breed. But Purebred (dog) just redirects to Dog breed. Oh, I see. You "merged" them (not really, per your edit summary "there really isn't anything reliably sourced to merge". Let me try to understand. If I breed a bull with another bull, then I have a "purebred" bull. If I breed a terrier with another terrier, then I have I "purebred" terrier. If I breed a bull with a terrier, then I have a "bull and terrier" but that's not a (pure)breed. But if I breed a "bull and terrier" with another "bull and terrier" then I've magically transformed the progeny of two mutts into a new (pure)breed. I don't see where Staffordshire comes into this, that's a geographical location, not a dog. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I note that the Start-class "article" (for want of a better description) Purebred is largely unsourced, and it was tagged with references being called for back in 2007. The term itself has no referenced definition in that article. In my opinion, it should be made into a redirect to breed. This was not a good basis for comparison. 14.2.195.135 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wbm1058, the Webster dictionary provides a generality of what "breed" actually means relative to modern dog breeds and breed registries which is where breed is more closely defined. Each dog (respective to their specific breed) must meet their breed's standard in order to be admitted as a registered purebred dog that can be shown and/or bred. See this article which explains pet quality, and certain disqualifying traits. Purebreds are expected to meet a specific breed type, and must have proper bone structure, be the right size and weight, have a good traveling gait, correct head shape and eye color, accepted coat colors for that specific breed, a good temperament, and so forth. When considering these highly stringent methods of determining what is or isn't a purebred or even a breed, it should become more clear as to why we absolutely cannot say in Wikivoice that the bull and terrier hybrid is the renamed Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The bull and terrier is nothing more than a hybrid cross and forerunner to 6 distinct modern breeds, beginning with the Bull Terrier, 4 other modern breeds and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The order of recognition is explained in the Bull and terrier article. The name bull and terrier is neither indicative of a bona fide breed nor a purebred; rather it is a label hung on an inconsistent crossbreed with undocumented lineage presumed to be bulldog and bulldog-mastiff types crossed with a variety of terrier breeds and types – hardly what one could consider a specific breed, much less a purebred anything.  Atsme 💬 📧 05:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * wbm1056, I agree with the IP above that Purebred is a horribly sourced train wreck, but the Wiktionary definition corresponds with what non-UG dictionaries say: Cambridge, Chambers, Lexico and Merriam-Webster (none of them list "purebreed" ). So if we follow independent definitions, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not a purebred, but all individual Staffordshire Bull Terriers are. Have any sources been presented that suggest the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is anything other than a regular breed of dog?
 * Regarding breeding the same crossbreeds to one another, after several generations of doing so and when they start predictably passing on breed traits (conforming to the above definitions) they can be dubbed a breed. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations says about livestock: Juliet Clutton-Brock says specifically about dogs: . At the top of this section I have detailed a series of sources that say any or all of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier: 1) developed in the 19th century, 2) is the result of those original crosses of Bulldogs and terriers, 3) was formerly known by the various names detailed above. Do we have any sources that articulate a different view?
 * Regarding the inclusion of "Staffordshire" in the breed's name, the Kennel Club already had a Bull Terrier so demanded disambiguation. Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Black Country (large parts of which were in the county of Staffordshire) had been the epicentre for dog fighting in England and had the greatest concentration of Bull and Terriers, so "Staffordshire" was chosen as a disambiguator. Cavalryman (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC).

I've put a new heading on this sub-section, which has moved the conversation I started in an attempt to resolve the POV dispute off focus (though it's useful education for me).

Looking at Category:Dog breeds I see there are no categories for "pure" breeds. For encyclopedic purposes we just have breeds, which are more "pure" than types. But as explained to me above, I understand there is a distinction within a breed between show dogs and pets of the same breed. Is purebred dog a synonym for show dog, and if not, what's the difference between them?

The outcome of the Talk:Dog breed discussion was to merge, not delete, and I've found that cleanup after the merge hadn't been done. I found several circular redirects. So, again, I'm thinking that show dog might be a better target. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe Conformation (dog)? A purebred dog is a dog that conforms, or passes doggie conformation! – wbm1058 (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Pedigree is another mushy term that can be taken as a near-synonym to purebreed.

A show cat (also known as a purebred cat or pedigreed cat) is... hmm. wbm1058 (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Wbm1058 - pedigree is the documentation of a dog's lineage that traces back for several generations for both stud and bitch. For example, AKC & TKC maintain stud books that date back to the late 1800s, and include the pedigrees of registered dogs that span generations. The AKC also has the largest and probably oldest DNA database in the world and can actually test parentage if there's a challenge. On the otherhand, show dog is a bit more complicated. Registered purebred dogs are expected to meet the breed standard in order to show in conformation classes, but some breed registries like AKC also accommodate purebreds that do not quite cut the mustard (pet quality) by allowing them to compete in other dog show disciplines. Each breed registry has their own set of rules. Conformation classes are very strict, and the dogs are judged primarily on conformation (looks), gait (movement), temperament and how closely it fits breed standards, (see Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show which is televised), but there are also other classes offered for all registered dogs, including (pet quality) dogs who cannot show in conformation classes, such as field trials, obedience classes, agility, tracking, hunting, herding, etc. Those classes are open to registered purebreds as well as purebreds with "limited registration", and at times, open to dogs that are not registered with the sponsoring breed registry but with another purebred registry. Such limitation is typically placed by the breeder when registering a litter if they determine some pups in the litter were not quite up to conformation standards so they sort them out and apply for limited registration to prevent that particular dog from breeding & being able to register its potential offspring. Our dog articles need work, and as soon as we get this time sink resolved, we'll be able to focus in other areas. I hope that will be sooner than later.  Atsme 💬 📧 21:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am very happy to discuss retargeting the redirect, but not to Show dog or Conformation (dog). Not all purebred dogs compete in dog shows (only a tiny fraction do) and not all dog shows are for purebred dogs. The article linked by Atsme above does not even discuss purebreds. If you would like to retarget it, take it to Purebred (acknowledging that article needs a complete overhaul).
 * I am not sure this new subsection heading is helpful, this is a small aspect of this discussion and the relevant question remains unanswered. Cavalryman (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC).
 * Right, I made this a separate section because it's something of a sidebar, due to my answering a question you asked earler. wbm1058 (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox: Other names
We're still stuck at my starting point. The Other names listed in the infobox. "Other names by which the breed is known by English speakers." To try to sort that out, I looked for other articles transcluding Infobox dog breed. I'm curious to know how many dog breed articles specify other names in their infoboxes. That's not easy to determine because WP:TemplateData hasn't been set up for that template. If I set that up in the next couple days, we could have some data on that when the monthly Template Data reports for March are generated. The first breed I looked at, Afghan Hound, has several alternate names. Da Kochyano Spay isn't mentioned in the article outside the infobox, but I found it on Google. Same for Sage Balochi but it seems that's also spelled Baluchi. And what's this?! Another name for the Afghan Hound is "Greyhound", not to be confused with another breed that shares the same name. I like to check how Britannica covers something I'm unsure of. Hmm, their article lists "Alternate titles: bull-and-terrier, half and half". So if "Greyhound" is a valid altname for the Afghan Hound, maybe bull-and-terrier can be an altname for the Staffy, not to be confused with another breed or breeds that share the name. OK Google, bull-and-terrier does seem somewhat ambiguous, they show me early, ancient, Staffordshire, "original", and pit. Even more ambiguous, half and half dog could be a German Shepherd, or any mixed breed. We could put "half and half" in the infobox for several different breeds. Not just an altname for the Staffy. But maybe we don't need to put everything in the infobox, and just an inline citation for the more ambiguous altnames will do. I'll sleep on it and wait for responses. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * wbm1058, honestly I think this is a another distraction just like purebreds and types, so I would like to ask my question again.


 * At the top of this section I have detailed a series of sources (here) that say all of or a combination of: 1) the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was developed in the 19th century, 2) it is the result of those original crosses of Bulldogs and terriers, 3) it was formerly known by the names "Bull and Terrier", "Pit dog", "Bull Terrier" and "Half and half" (and some other names). Do we have any sources that articulate a different view? Cavalryman (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC).
 * But, if you would like to discuss usage of the name Greyhound in 18th and 19th century travel writings I would be happy to, but I suggest we do so at Talk:Sighthound. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC).
 * Yes, I've seen all that. It's not clear to me that the article in its present form disputes any of that.
 * I see "Bull and Terrier" mentioned 22 times in the article, but none of those are in the infobox
 * "Pit" is mentioned 19 times, "pit fighting", "pit bull type", etc., but not "pit dog" specifically. I understand this name was used because the dogs were placed in pits, pitted against other pit dogs for the entertainment of human spectators, as in world wrestling promotions but with dogs instead of people
 * "Bull Terrier" is mentioned 94 times. "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" is mentioned 67 times, so that's 27 mentions of "Bull Terrier" without "Staffordshire" in front of it, starting with the hatnote: "Not to be confused with Bull Terrier". I believe the (other) Bull Terrier was first recognized by kennel clubs, so when this dog was recognized later, "Staffordshire" was needed to disambiguate this "Bull Terrier" from the other "Bull Terrier"
 * "Half" is seen six times in this article: two mentions of "half-and-halfs and half-breds"
 * So all those names are in the article. It's not clear to me that the current version of this article articulates a different view, so I'm not sure what your concern is. I thought that article body mentions weren't sufficient, and you wanted "other names" in the infobox as well. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting one of the other discussions on this matter and linking it here for convenience: RfC: Sources for the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier – wbm1058 (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wbm1058's summary. Both articles already include all substantial views per WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is one of 6 distinct modern purebred dog breeds with the same bull and terrier ancestry. Bull and terrier is not a bona fide breed, it is a cross of several different breeds/breed types.
 * TKC states: "The Staffordshire Bull Terrier  shares the same ancestry as the Bull Terrier,  i.e. Bulldog crossed with the Black and Tan terrier, and was developed as a fighting dog.
 * AKC states: "From among the profusion of breeds created in this way, most now extinct, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, perfected by one James Hinks, of Birmingham, England, in the mid-19th century, emerged as one of the most successful and enduring. The breed name that finally came to these burly, broad-skulled terriers is a nod to the county of Staffordshire, where the breed was especially popular."
 * UKC states: "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."
 * And now the Bull Terrier:
 * TKC: "The modern Bull Terrier descended from a cross between the Bulldog and the White English Terrier and was bred for dog fighting in the 19th century. Birmingham breeder James Hinks is credited with stabilising type with the addition of new blood..."
 * AKC: "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." 
 * Expert Denise Flaim: "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 official registries that approve what a breed will be named do not say that bull and terrier crosses were "renamed Staffordshire Bull Terrier", which is what Cavalryman wants included and why he is saying both articles have NPOV issue. The NPOV tag on both articles is a vexatious and frivolous tag because Cavalryman did not gain consensus for his proposed merge and rewrite of this GA, the latter of which is a GAR issue if he truly believes his suggestions will improve the article. It would be a fool's mission to attempt to include fringe language in WikiVoice as a statement of fact based on the many RS that dispute it - many of which I've listed above - and they even include the out-of-context statements in cherrypicked sources by Cavalryman in noncompliance with OR. My reasons for adamently opposing his position is based solidly on WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:DUE - all of which are core content policies, not just guidelines.  Atsme 💬 📧 17:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, seems "renamed" is a point of contention. Can we just say that the Australian National Kennel Council says that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the "original Bull Terrier", simply a renamed version of the "Bull and Terrier", a minority view not shared by other kennel clubs, and cite THIS as a reference for that statement? That would include the Aussie KC view in the article. wbm1058 (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Original cross
you may have seen my question, but you still have not answered it. Would you do me the courtesy of doing so. Cavalryman (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * At the top of this section I have detailed a series of sources (here) that say all of or a combination of: 1) the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was developed in the 19th century, 2) it is the result of those original crosses of Bulldogs and terriers, 3) it was formerly known by the names "Bull and Terrier", "Pit dog", "Bull Terrier" and "Half and half" (and some other names). Do we have any sources that articulate a different view? No. I have not seen a view that disputes that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was developed in the 19th century (albeit it was not called "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" in the 19th century while it was being developed), it developed from bulldogs and terriers (seems obvious from the name!) and it was obviously called other names in the 19th century because it was not called "Staffordshire Bull Terrier". You want to lead the discussion, you're not following my lead, so I'll let you take the next step because I don't follow where you're going with this. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, the fourth time's the charm.
 * So we agree, the mainstream and entirely unchallenged view is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the original cross of Bulldogs and terriers, it was developed in the 19th century, and prior to the 1930s it was known by a number of names, but most significantly "Bull and Terrier", "Pit dog", "Bull Terrier" and "Half and half". I have to go for work now, hopefully I will have some coverage this evening. Cavalryman (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC).
 * No, you didn't ask me whether "the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the original cross of Bulldogs and terriers. I do not agree to that word. It is simply a cross of those breeds. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but you do agree that the sources state the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the result of those original crosses of Bulldogs and terriers? Do we have sources that state there was a different original cross? Cavalryman (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC).
 * There is a separate article bull and terrier which is about the topic of the "original crosses". I understand that you proposed merging that article to here, but there was no consensus for that merge. The lead of that article states that bulldog and terrier crossbreeds date back to the early 1800s. I don't know whether we can be more specific than that. Unless you can find a press release from someone announcing that "I have successfully initiated a bulldog and terrier mating which produced crossbred offspring!" Actually I'm sure they did that with multiple pairs of bulldogs and terriers. Maybe find an advertisement for a bulldog and terrier mating ranch, or breeding house, or whatever they called such a thing back in the early 1800s. I also understand that in the early 1800s kennel clubs did not yet exist, and the purpose of this crossbreeding wasn't so much for forming new breeds of dogs as it was to produce dogs with better chances of winning pit fights with other dogs. says that six distinct breeds descended from the (original) bull and terrier hybrids. The Staffordshire was not the first to be recognized by a kennel club, but I suppose there might be other ways of ordering them than order of recognition by clubs. Presumably the split of these six from the original was caused by further crossbreeding refinements (i.e. more bull, less terrier – or more terrier, less bull). Whether the "original" cross from the early 1800s was maintained to this day – without any further crossbreeding refinements – seems to be your point of contention. Yes there are sources such as the Australian Kennel Council that say Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the “original Bull Terrier”,  simply a  re-named  version of the old fashioned  ‘Bull  and  Terrier”, but is the old fashioned bull and terrier just one of the six breeds that descended from the original cross, and not the original cross itself? The author of that Australian breed standard was not around in the 1800s when these original crosses were made, so I'd be interested to see what research she did to make that determination and what primary sources she based that claim on. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * wbm1058, respectfully you have not addressed the question again, and further I think quoting unsourced sentences from articles that have been deliberately rewritten to portray a certain POV is unproductive, so let's stick to the sources.
 * There are a number of sources at the top of this section that state the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was spawned in the 19th century from crosses of Bulldogs and terriers, do we have any sources that state there was a different original cross? Cavalryman (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC).
 * You've got me going in circles; I perceive that you're re-asking a question I've already answered.
 * the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was spawned in the 19th century – yes, I agree
 * the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was spawned from crosses of bulldogs and terriers – yes, I agree
 * there are sources claiming that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was the "original cross" – yes, I agree – but – there are sources that claimed the world is flat, which have been proven wrong by science
 * no, I'm not aware of any sources claiming that another breed such as the Bull Terrier is the "original cross"
 * I am not here to research and look for sources. I'm trying to resolve a content dispute in which you and Atsme are the primary participants. I present article statements that I presume have been sourced.
 * A cited statement in the article says "Little is known about the actual pedigrees of the Stafford's ancestral origins, beyond individual types and styles of dogs that varied by geographic region."
 * From that I take it that the "original cross" is unknown. It's not that there is a "different" original cross, it's that there is insufficient evidence for claiming that any specific modern registered breed is "the" – "original cross".
 * Please – please take this discussion out of the circles you've spun it into. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

wbm1058, I have attempted to discuss the sentence "Little is known about the actual pedigrees of the Stafford's ancestral origins, beyond individual types and styles of dogs that varied by geographic region." here and here (last paragraphs in both), that sentence is very clearly taken out of context. Do we have any reliable sources that state the earth is flat? If you feel we are in circles it is because I am asking, what sources exist that state the Bull and Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier are different? Because I see a mountain of sources saying they are the same breed of dog, and nothing concrete saying otherwise. Do you know of any? Cavalryman (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC).
 * whilst a branch of this discussion has spun to a different forum, I see no reason why our discussion cannot continue. So I ask again, what sources exist that state the Bull and Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier are different? Cavalryman (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC).

OR/SYNTH tags
In response to the tags currently in the article, I have filed a request for input at No original research/Noticeboard. When that issue has been resolved, I will file a request at the NPOV noticeboard.  Atsme 💬 📧 13:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

POV allegations
Requested input at WP:NPOVN. <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 💬 📧 09:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect
To state the GB Kennel Club SBT is the old Bull and Terrier is like comparing Neanderthals with Homo Sapiens. It was generally larger at least 18 inches at the withers and was more like a mongrel dog but with high prey drive and pain tolerance. The looks were eventually standardised and miniaturised by KC dog breeders in the 30s / 40s. They were the progenitor of the APBT AST EBT and SBT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Source? Refer WP:RELIABLE. 14.2.198.139 (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/dog-breeds/bull-terrier-history-behind-the-breed/ 88.97.39.126 (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Another repeat of important sources
The basic information is still the pertinant, copied from Asme above: 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'See the 2017 DNA analysis in the article which states the following (my bold underline): {{xt|"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." I'll point out that a certain editor seems to want equal NPOV for this or these other POVs, but it may be unwarranted here. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>{{sup|(talk)}} 22:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello {{u|dawnleelynn}}, how is this inconsistent with the breed being developed in the 19th century as stated by practically every kennel club that provides an historical overview of the breed, see here? What about that source says the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was not known by the name "Bull and Terrier" before 1935? What was it known by before that? Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wanted to add that I think the article makes it clear what wbm said much earlier: "From that I take it that the "original cross" is unknown. It's not that there is a "different" original cross, it's that there is insufficient evidence for claiming that any specific modern registered breed is "the" – "original cross". Please – please take this discussion out of the circles you've spun it into. – wbm1058 on March 3" <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>{{sup|(talk)}} 23:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we have multiple reliable sources stating the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the "original Bull and Terrier" that was the direct result of the crosses of Bulldogs and terriers, so for the article to present a NPOV it must acknowledge that these views exist. Cavalryman (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC).
 * There are even more sources that say all dogs phylogenetically descended from the wolf (Canis lupus), and probably more or just as many that say six distinct modern breeds descended from the bull and terrier, which was not a bona fide breed but as Flaim put it, "the hybrid of its day", and "starting point for several breeds". What the crosses actually were back in the 1800s is anecdotal, and none of the books you cited changes that fact, so stop bludgeoning us with sources that change nothing. We can also make similar statements out of context about all the descendants of bull and terriers as you have done for SBT and list a horde of books and articles written about the Bull Terrier, Boston Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Miniature Bull Terrier, and American Pit Bull Terrier – they all share similar bull and terrier ancestry (whatever that may be). The Hinks' Bull Terrier was the first bull terrier to be accepted as a purebred by TKC, and the Staffordshire strain of bull terriers was approved much later because they first had to develop a pure breed that bred true to the accepted breed standard. It's a logical fallacy to say the SBT is the bull and terrier renamed, and the most we can do is what has already been done – include the theories with attribution per DUE. <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 💬 📧 03:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Commenters here just don't seem to get it. It doesn't matter where this dog came from, nor whom has said what. The article is not currently expressed in a way which reflects a neutral point of view with due weight allocated. 14.2.198.139 (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand neutrality and weight. However, this is a heavy topic to discuss. There's a lot of material to unpack in several different articles throughout the dog project. It's taking some time to become familiar with it all. Atsme just added a comment above that I found very edifying regarding the sources. Hopefully, as I peruse the content some more, I will be more helpful. I am not here for lengthy dialogues, just want to add value if I can. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>{{sup|(talk)}} 22:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have consistently read through the various discussions. I did notice that there are mentions of 4 dozen sources, 50 sources, etc. Has thought of Citation overkill been discussed? Already being discussing is what citations get used for each point. The article mentions that using so many citations for an inline citation, like 10, is overkill. Or using many in one sentence is overkill. And so on it goes. Or will there be reference sections for all of these? I really mean, will there be special sections for some of them.<i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>{{sup|(talk)}} 17:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Only so many can be used and how will their weight be determined? In the neighborhood where I work, we have struggled with overkill in Earl W. Bascom. I have removed citations from that article because a certain user just kept adding them to an already crowded citation placement in some areas The categories are also overcrowded. Can all of this material and discussion be distilled down into some edifying content: I hope so. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>{{sup|(talk)}} 20:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would imagine we would only use whichever sources are deemed to be the most appropriate to cite any views being expressed. One party in this dispute still claims all of these sources are articulating WP:Fringe theories, but the sheer volume of them (I have held back a further 10 sources) demonstrate they are clearly mainstream views and still currently held (you can recheck the kennel club websites right now). Only three sources have been provided that present a different view to some aspects that are being contested, and as has already been discussed above no sources have been presented that conflict other aspects that are still being excluded from the article. That means the article does not present a neutral view of the subject matter.
 * Further, per WP:YESPOV articles are to {{tqq|ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity}}, 50-3 is the current metric for levels of support. Cavalryman (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC).

{{Clear}}

Getting issues resolved, imaginary or otherwise
,, - as former collaborators on this article, please join us again, and provide your input to help resolve the disagreement that has stalled progress. Cavalryman has added several tags, including NPOV, source & various others. I will add that he has failed to gain consensus for both his proposed merge and the NPOV tags, including (most recently) NPOVN. Please weigh in at that noticeboard as well. <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 💬 📧 16:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Atsme, above (here) I have provided fifty sources that state all or multiple aspects of:
 * the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was developed into a distinct breed of dog in the 19th century
 * the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was developed directly from crosses of Bulldogs and terriers (with no intermediate breed in their lineage)
 * the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was initially known by a number of names, but most commonly: "Bull and Terrier", "Pit dog", "Bull Terrier" and "Half and Half"
 * the breed's name was later changed to "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" in order to achieve kennel club recognition, this occurred in 1935
 * the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the ancestor of all of the other bull-type terrier breeds (except possibly the Boston Terrier which many sources state descends from separate crosses of Bulldogs and terriers that occurred in the US).
 * These sources include the Kennel Club of Britain, the American Kennel Club, the Canadian Kennel Club, the Australian National Kennel Council, the Raad van Beheer of the Netherlands and the Société Centrale Canine of France (the last three of which are member clubs of the Fédération Cynologique Internationale which has not published a breed history that I am aware of). Additionally, a number of those sources are cited in the article multiple times.
 * You are refusing to allow these views to be included in the article despite being told in multiple venues that the article should include them. Unless all of these sources are deemed to be unreliable (which they have not been) this article and bull and terrier must include these views, otherwise they do not adhere to WP:NPOV. As stated there, NPOV is non-negotiable and no local consensus can override it. Cavalryman (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC).
 * I can't speak for the other 9 or 10 editors who have disagreed with you on this TP, at NPOVN, or when you drug me over to ANI under false pretenses, but I will say that I've grown weary of your false allegatons, and relentless attempts to state a logical fallacy in WikiVoice. Your failed attempts to disrupt this GA began when it was a GAC in 2019 (for which you apologized). In 2021 you proposed a merge into Bull and terrier that was closed this year as no consensus sometime after I opposed the merge, which apparently triggered your relentless bludgeoning and tag-bombing in an effort to force your POV into this GA. The irony of it all is that what you claim is not included in the article actually is included per DUE & WEIGHT as follows:
 * 1. the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was developed into a distinct breed of dog in the 19th century – we've been over this multiple times, so for the last time...the article does not state logical fallacies as statements of fact. It accurately describes the modern breed's ancestry in compliance with NPOV as follows:
 * The late A.W.A Cairns, former editor of the online Stafford Magazine published by Southern Counties Staffordshire Bull Terrier Society,[24][25] wrote, "Kennel Club recognition of the breed is shrouded in mystery. Recognition was announced in the April 1935 Kennel Gazette in the name of Staffordshire Bull Terrier. There was no explanation as to how this came about. No Breed Club or Breed Standard existed."[26] The SBT article goes on to state: Cairns believed a "Stafford-like animal existed at the turn of the 19th Century" and admitted, with the "possibility for slight prejudice", that "the only modern dog of this type is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier". However, Cairns further clarified that the pedigree inscribed on the plaque of the Crib and Rosa painting, specifically the words "the famous Staffordshire bitch", is not suggesting that it was a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, but that "it could be concluded that animals of that type, existed in that county before 1816."[26] Had that theory been proven true, then the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier would be considered a descendant of purebred bulldogs with no crossbreeding to terriers.[23]
 * 2. the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was developed directly from crosses of Bulldogs and terriers (with no intermediate breed in their lineage) – sorry, but that is pure speculation and opinion based on a logical fallacy. Common knowledge is that no one knows the ancestry of any modern dog for certain aside from Canis Lupus and Canis Familaris.
 * SBT article accurately states: DNA studies have brought some clarity to the hybridization mystery of bull and terrier hybrids, suggestive of a New World dog within some modern breeds. The study states that "all of the bull and terrier crosses map to the terriers of Ireland and date to 1860-1870."[12] The historical descriptions confirm the popularity of such crosses in Ireland, but they do not positively identify all the breeds that were involved.[12] As supported by the DNA study, as well as the AKC and KC, references to the historic bull and terrier were not as a bona fide breed;[4][11] rather, the term was used to describe a heterogeneous group of dogs that may include purebreds of different breeds, or crosses of those breeds. Bull and terrier hybrids, or pit bull types are considered the forerunner of several modern standardised breeds.[13]
 * SBT article also accurately states: The unregulated breeding of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier has led to misconceptions surrounding its origins and thereafter because its exact genetic makeup can be inconsistent. At the time, traceable pedigrees did not exist. It has been generally accepted that the breed descended from the 19th century bulldog–terrier crosses that were bred for dog fighting.[10]: 8  Joanna de Klerk, DVM, author of The Complete Guide to Staffordshire Bull Terriers surmised that after selective breeding refined the bull and terrier cross into the English Bull Terrier, the Stafford eventually emerged from the original bull and terrier, and only after a breed standard was created by more regulated breeding did it gain recognition by The Kennel Club in 1935. [10]: 8
 * 3. the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was initially known by a number of names, but most commonly: "Bull and Terrier", "Pit dog", "Bull Terrier" and "Half and Half - yes, but so was the AmStaff, and Bull Terrier...and??
 * The SBT article states (which you tagged disputed): The ancestral crosses of bulldogs and terriers were known by different aliases, such as the Patched Fighting Terrier, Staffordshire Pit-dog, Brindle Bull, and Bull-and-Terrier, which can be confusing relative to the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier's brief history.[5] Those same crosses were also called half-and-halfs and half-breds but were more commonly known as the bull and terrier, which was not a breed but the beginning of several breeds.[4][disputed – discuss]
 * The SBT article also states: In the mid–19th century, the bull and terrier hybrids were known by several different aliases, such as the Patched Fighting Terrier, Staffordshire Pit-dog, Brindle Bull, and Bull-and-Terrier.[5] A common name was simply the Bull Terrier, which was later associated with the Hinks' Bull Terrier;[10]: 18
 * 4. the breed's name was later changed to "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" in order to achieve kennel club recognition, this occurred in 1935 The breed was not a breed until much later than the Bull Terrier became a breed as we know "breed" today. The parent club first had to develop a breed in order for it to be recognized. The article explains this. I highly recommend reading the article.
 * It wasn't until 1935 that The Kennel Club accepted Staffordshire Bull Terriers into their studbook with established breed standards.[2] The American Kennel Club (AKC) admitted Staffordshire Bull Terriers as a purebred on 1 October 1974 as their 121st registered breed.[8][9]
 * Section Early history: As a result, two different breeds of Bull Terriers emerged: the Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.[4][7] The Bull Terrier's fighting heritage was left behind whereas breeders of Staffordshire Bull Terriers in the UK continued their illegal competitions which paralleled what was happening in the U.S. with the American Staffordshire Terrier; neither breed could gain official acceptance in their respective native lands. "No established registry wanted to be affiliated with a dog that drew the blood of its own kind for a living."[7]
 * Section Recognition: Phil Drabble reported that among the various types of bull and terrier, the type from Cradley Heath was recognised as a separate breed to be named the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.[31] In May 1935, the KC approved the name "Staffordshire Bull Terrier"; the first name requested, "Original Bull Terrier", had been rejected.[17][23] In June 1935, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club was formed during a meeting at the Old Cross Guns pub in Cradley Heath; a breed standard was approved the same day, and further shows were held that year.[23] Other pivotal breeders involved in acquiring breed recognition were Joe Mallen and actor Tom Walls.[23] The first champions recognised in England were the bitch Lady Eve and the stud Gentleman Jim in 1939.[5][32]
 * 5. the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the ancestor of all of the other bull-type terrier breeds (except possibly the Boston Terrier which many sources state descends from separate crosses of Bulldogs and terriers that occurred in the US). Logical fallacy defined! How can a modern purebred dog that wasn't developed and refined until the 20th century be the ancestor of purebred dogs that were developed before this so-called ancestor of all bull-type terrier breeds?  I don't even know if we can call that a logical fallacy because it defies logic and is far worse than a fallacy. <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  💬 📧 04:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Now, having waded through this wall of words over the past few days, I have no problem in rejecting . I fully support . It is time to get on with editing other dog articles. Cheers to all!
 * I am going to add the following info cited to an article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and hope it will finally put an end to Cavalryman's relentless attempt to state a fringe theory in WikiVoice, or give it any more WEIGHT than exists now per DUE: Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography. The credibility of the 20 or so authors (scientists) is quite notable (and reliable) as is the journal. The article states: Modern breeding practices, focused on distinct breeds with strict aesthetic requirements and closed bloodlines, only emerged in the 19th century, and claims for the antiquity (and long-term continuity) of modern breeds are based upon little or no historical or empirical evidence.  In fact, recent historical records clearly demonstrate that most modern breeds experienced significant population fluctuations within the past 100 y (Table S1). Here, we only use the term “breed” when referring to modern dog breeds recognized by kennel clubs. In Table S1, they describe the early history of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as follows: The early history of this breed is identical to the Bull Terrier which was a cross between a Bulldog and a Black and Tan Terrier. This breed is the result of a deliberate cross between a Bull Terrier (itself a mix of a Bulldog and a Black and Tan Terrier) and a smaller terrier (possibly a Manchester Terrier or a White Terrier).  Their description of the Bull Terrier: This breed was created in 1835 after bull baiting was made illegal by crossing English Bulldogs with several breeds including Black and Tan Terriers, Spanish Pointers, English White Terriers, Dalmatians, Greyhounds and Whippets in order to create a dog breed that would fight other dogs. I am going to remove the tags and incorporate this information accordingly. Gotta love science! <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  💬 📧 17:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this. Clearly endorses your earlier posts. There can be no further objection to closing this now.

You have both misinterpreted WP:NPOV. If reliable sources state a credible view, that must be covered in the article. Excluding that view in its entirety is out of line with policy. Cavalryman (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , please read WP:NPOV, it is non-negotiable and no local consensus can override it. Cavalryman (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC).
 * I know NPOV very well. I either promoted or helped promote 8 FAs, 19 GAs, and I teach at the WP:NPPSCHOOL. Cavalryman, you do not have consensus to add that tag - there is NO NPOV issue as has been demonstrated at NPOVN.  Please stop the tag-bombing and edit warring. You are being disruptive. <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  💬 📧 22:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, you have been told repeatedly across multiple forums that the article needs to articulate both points of view, by refusing to do so you are undermining Wikipedia's second pillar. Cavalryman (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC).
 * All views are in the article which has been pointed out to you directly above, and numerous times prior, and not just by me. Call an RfC stating specifically what you propose to include, and we'll vote on it. <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  💬 📧 22:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Gareth, please show me the RSN discussion where all 50 sources above were declared unreliable. Otherwise, ignoring their consistently stated views is presenting a non-neutral view of this breed's history.
 * Atsme, you have been told consistently in four venues that the article must state both points of view. That you disagree with community is unfortunate, but contrary to our oldest policy.
 * Both, policy literally says local consensus cannot override NPOV, you need much broader community consensus that declares all of the 50 sources I have provided are unreliable for their claims to remove the POV tag. Further, I do not believe there is consensus to remove the tag, above said they are convinced by the sources I have provided, and after discussion no other participants have disagreed with many of the five points above. Cavalryman (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC).

Okay, I doubt that no one agrees with Atmes' recent statement of 5 points, except Gareth. After some research, I agree with it. I have to take some of their research on faith. But that's an easy decision because I see they have much more experience and they are not the ones doing the harassment.

Not only do I agree with them, I ask anyone is it reasonable to expect anyone to review 50 sources? I'm still getting familiar with the article's sources and there's quite a few. Additionally, if any of those sources only have a small amount of material, then WP:UNDUE says they should not even be included. There's even a statement from Jimbo in that policy saying that. So, NPOV is not infallible as you keep trying to insist. Verifiablity and No original research go hand-in-hand with it. Are you saying you've checked all 50 sources for these? Do you expect us to take it on trust? Are you saying the sources in the article are not reliable? Who has the final say in all of this? <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 23:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * harrass maybe too harsh just annoy <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 23:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is reasonable to expect someone to review 50 sources if they wish to thoroughly validate what is claimed, per WP:VERIFY. Taking guesses at what these sources may or may not reveal is unhelpful. 14.2.199.45 (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment
,, , , perhaps you'll agree that the discussion above has been going on for long enough, and does not seem to be moving towards any resolution. Perhaps some outside input would be helpful at this point? I hope so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ping fail, sorry, ! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The dispute has not been resolved. Therefore, I agree that a WP:THIRD opinion be sought. 14.2.195.135 (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

My final comment and hopefully, it will wrap-up this debate without further ado. What Cavalryman has proposed is absurd, and would be a violation of NPOV, V, and OR if it was included as proposed. The theories are included but not in Wikivoice, and reflect proper WEIGHT & BALANCE per DUE; there is no NPOV issue. Cavalryman has basically cherrypicked a single sentence from his choice of books that state the absurd flat-earth theory that the bull and terrier is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier renamed. (WP:OR) The majority of books, articles and breed registries do not make such a claim. Other books he cited don't mean what he thinks they mean. What's even crazier is the fact that there are 6 distinct modern breeds that share the same ancestry. And what about common sense? If we single out one modern breed and say it is the bull and terrier renamed, what do we do about the other 5 modern breeds? Even more crazy is the fact that bull and terrier is just a label that defines a heterogenous group of bulldog and terrier crosses with unknown pedigrees & unknown percentages of unknown mixes - it's not even a breed (basically mongrels). When this article was a GAC under review by in 2019, Cavalryman was just as disruptive then as he is now. He finally stepped back and admitted to the fact that there were 2 theories, and he apologized for his behavior:

On Sept 13, 2019, there was a call for consensus - we all worked very hard, as did FunkMonk, to make sure this article met GAC criteria. Calvaryman was pinged:

There are entire books about this topic, not just a single statement cherrypicked from an entire book as what Cavalryman has done, but entire books like The Bully Breeds by David Harris with multiple chapters that speak to this topic: see Chapter 2 Union Jack and Old Glory - pg 25-39; and Chapter 3 Dogs of Steel, pg 43-44. Harris lays out the 6 distinct modern breeds that descended from the bull and terrier crosses, all of which is corroborated by notable breed registries. I'm not saying the article couldn't use a bit of tightening for better flow, but what Cavalryman has proposed is absurd, and as unacceptable now as it was in 2019, and again in Feb 2022 when he failed to get consensus to merge Bull and terrier into Staffordshire Bull Terrier. <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 💬 📧 06:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * All that we have here is more "She said, he said". There appears to be a general reluctance by both aggrieved parties to seek a neutral third party opinion per WP:THIRD, and I cannot help but to wonder why. What is to be lost? 14.2.195.135 (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I just received an email from the The Kennel Club Library. I will be happy to share the email publicly as soon as I get permission, but what I may have to do is have the sender submit the email to WP:VRT so a ticket # can be assigned and processed. I will say with confidence that The Kennel Club substantiates my position that the modern bull terrier breeds in the UK, (Bull Terrier + Staffordshire Bull Terrier) both share a common ancestry with heavy features of the Bull-and-Terrier crosses. Quoting what's in the email ...the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier more closely resembles the old type of bull terrier - was developed from bull-and-terrier crosses  - as it was before being modified in to something resembling its modern form by the efforts of James Hinks is not in doubt. The evidence is in the photographs and artwork of the period. However, the email goes on to say that ...the general resemblance is not sufficient to make the very definitive statement that this is the same breed of dog under another name. It is certainly a leap to say that the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier is simply a renamed bull-and-terrier and to assert that the bull-and-terrier was a breed in the modern understanding of the word. The sender also responded to the Australian Kennel Club's claim regarding their extended breed standard, and surmised that, in their opinion, the author probably attempted brevity and over-simplified. That is a much nicer way of putting it then saying it's a flat-earth theory, so I won't use that analogy anymore. Considering The Kennel Club is the first official breed registry during the time of the bull and terrier crosses, and the first to accept the Bull Terrier as a breed, and later the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a breed, approving the breed name and breed standard, it is appropriate to consider their statement official. This debate is over. I have forwarded the email for verification purposes to a WP admin and another trusted editor but will withhold their names in the event they do not wish to be involved. <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  💬 📧 23:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC) TKC letter is VRT Ticket#2022030910008018 18:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

General comments

 * I don't have much to add to the very specific topic above, which I think has little bearing on the GA status of the article, but I'll add some more general comments that could possibly lead to improvement of the article below. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Bold the common names listed in the intro? ✅
 * "It is in the terrier group" Link terrier.✅
 * "dogs in the 100–120 lb range" Add conversions?✅
 * "for gameness" What does this mean?✅
 * "produced the first "bull and terriers" I guess this should link to the precursor type discussed above? I see you link it later, but should be at first mention.✅
 * Since this is a british breed, I'd expect UK spelling per WP:engvar? Now it seems to be US spelling.✅
 * Still a mixture of colour/color.✅
 * The images create a bit of a wall on the right side, perhaps group related images with the multiple image template, like in for example quagga? – I pretty much stick with right alignment per MOS:IMAGELOC.
 * At what time?✅
 * Link dog fighting at first mention in intro and article body.✅
 * Link selective breeding and bloodsport. ✅
 * In general, a lot of terms are only linked in the intro, but not the article body, it seems, should also be linked in the latter. In some cases they are linked, but not at first mention. ✅
 * More names and terms mentioned in image captions could also be linked.✅
 * "Same origins as Bull Terrier" Sounds a bit clunky, perhaps "shared origin"? ✅ I went with shared ancestry because there are actually 6 with shared ancestry.
 * "Bull-and-Terrier.[7]A common" Missing space. <--- 😄 c'mon! you could'a fixed that one and spared us both the extra effort. ✅
 * Haha, you never know if there's a point behind something... FunkMonk (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "a socially acceptable "gentleman's companion" with refinement, cleaner lines, and courage without aggressive tendencies." According to who? Direct quotes like that could need author attribution in-text. ✅ Changed altogether.
 * "didn't like" Contractions are discouraged. ✅
 * "No established registry wanted to be affiliated with a dog that drew the blood of its own kind for a living." Quoted from who? ✅
 * "It wasn't until" Contraction, check for this throughout. ✅
 * Add unit conversions throughout.✅


 * ✅ <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 💬 📧 17:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Finalé
Ok,, I do hope you won't blow a gasket but I made the following changes/updates: (1) added clarity where needed, (2) placed sections in proper order, (3) fixed/added citations & RS, (4) made all the conversions I could find, (5) made spelling comply with EngB, and (6) made sure everything was in compliance with NPOV, V and NOR. I'll probably read it again later this evening because I am kennel-blind right now but if you see anything glaring that needs to be fixed, please ping me. <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 💬 📧 17:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Changes looking nice, I will continue with the rest of the article soonish. And condolences for your sister, I just saw. FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment
,, , , perhaps you'll agree that the discussion above has been going on for long enough, and does not seem to be moving towards any resolution. Perhaps some outside input would be helpful at this point? I hope so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ping fail, sorry, ! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The dispute has not been resolved. Therefore, I agree that a WP:THIRD opinion be sought. 14.2.195.135 (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

My final comment and hopefully, it will wrap-up this debate without further ado. What Cavalryman has proposed is absurd, and would be a violation of NPOV, V, and OR if it was included as proposed. The theories are included but not in Wikivoice, and reflect proper WEIGHT & BALANCE per DUE; there is no NPOV issue. Cavalryman has basically cherrypicked a single sentence from his choice of books that state the absurd flat-earth theory that the bull and terrier is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier renamed. (WP:OR) The majority of books, articles and breed registries do not make such a claim. Other books he cited don't mean what he thinks they mean. What's even crazier is the fact that there are 6 distinct modern breeds that share the same ancestry. And what about common sense? If we single out one modern breed and say it is the bull and terrier renamed, what do we do about the other 5 modern breeds? Even more crazy is the fact that bull and terrier is just a label that defines a heterogenous group of bulldog and terrier crosses with unknown pedigrees & unknown percentages of unknown mixes - it's not even a breed (basically mongrels). When this article was a GAC under review by in 2019, Cavalryman was just as disruptive then as he is now. He finally stepped back and admitted to the fact that there were 2 theories, and he apologized for his behavior:

On Sept 13, 2019, there was a call for consensus - we all worked very hard, as did FunkMonk, to make sure this article met GAC criteria. Calvaryman was pinged:

There are entire books about this topic, not just a single statement cherrypicked from an entire book as what Cavalryman has done, but entire books like The Bully Breeds by David Harris with multiple chapters that speak to this topic: see Chapter 2 Union Jack and Old Glory - pg 25-39; and Chapter 3 Dogs of Steel, pg 43-44. Harris lays out the 6 distinct modern breeds that descended from the bull and terrier crosses, all of which is corroborated by notable breed registries. I'm not saying the article couldn't use a bit of tightening for better flow, but what Cavalryman has proposed is absurd, and as unacceptable now as it was in 2019, and again in Feb 2022 when he failed to get consensus to merge Bull and terrier into Staffordshire Bull Terrier. <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 💬 📧 06:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * All that we have here is more "She said, he said". There appears to be a general reluctance by both aggrieved parties to seek a neutral third party opinion per WP:THIRD, and I cannot help but to wonder why. What is to be lost? 14.2.195.135 (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I just received an email from the The Kennel Club Library. I will be happy to share the email publicly as soon as I get permission, but what I may have to do is have the sender submit the email to WP:VRT so a ticket # can be assigned and processed. I will say with confidence that The Kennel Club substantiates my position that the modern bull terrier breeds in the UK, (Bull Terrier + Staffordshire Bull Terrier) both share a common ancestry with heavy features of the Bull-and-Terrier crosses. Quoting what's in the email ...the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier more closely resembles the old type of bull terrier - was developed from bull-and-terrier crosses  - as it was before being modified in to something resembling its modern form by the efforts of James Hinks is not in doubt. The evidence is in the photographs and artwork of the period. However, the email goes on to say that ...the general resemblance is not sufficient to make the very definitive statement that this is the same breed of dog under another name. It is certainly a leap to say that the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier is simply a renamed bull-and-terrier and to assert that the bull-and-terrier was a breed in the modern understanding of the word. The sender also responded to the Australian Kennel Club's claim regarding their extended breed standard, and surmised that, in their opinion, the author probably attempted brevity and over-simplified. That is a much nicer way of putting it then saying it's a flat-earth theory, so I won't use that analogy anymore. Considering The Kennel Club is the first official breed registry during the time of the bull and terrier crosses, and the first to accept the Bull Terrier as a breed, and later the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a breed, approving the breed name and breed standard, it is appropriate to consider their statement official. This debate is over. I have forwarded the email for verification purposes to a WP admin and another trusted editor but will withhold their names in the event they do not wish to be involved. <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  💬 📧 23:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC) TKC letter is VRT Ticket#2022030910008018 18:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

General comments

 * I don't have much to add to the very specific topic above, which I think has little bearing on the GA status of the article, but I'll add some more general comments that could possibly lead to improvement of the article below. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Bold the common names listed in the intro? ✅
 * "It is in the terrier group" Link terrier.✅
 * "dogs in the 100–120 lb range" Add conversions?✅
 * "for gameness" What does this mean?✅
 * "produced the first "bull and terriers" I guess this should link to the precursor type discussed above? I see you link it later, but should be at first mention.✅
 * Since this is a british breed, I'd expect UK spelling per WP:engvar? Now it seems to be US spelling.✅
 * Still a mixture of colour/color.✅
 * The images create a bit of a wall on the right side, perhaps group related images with the multiple image template, like in for example quagga? – I pretty much stick with right alignment per MOS:IMAGELOC.
 * At what time?✅
 * Link dog fighting at first mention in intro and article body.✅
 * Link selective breeding and bloodsport. ✅
 * In general, a lot of terms are only linked in the intro, but not the article body, it seems, should also be linked in the latter. In some cases they are linked, but not at first mention. ✅
 * More names and terms mentioned in image captions could also be linked.✅
 * "Same origins as Bull Terrier" Sounds a bit clunky, perhaps "shared origin"? ✅ I went with shared ancestry because there are actually 6 with shared ancestry.
 * "Bull-and-Terrier.[7]A common" Missing space. <--- 😄 c'mon! you could'a fixed that one and spared us both the extra effort. ✅
 * Haha, you never know if there's a point behind something... FunkMonk (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "a socially acceptable "gentleman's companion" with refinement, cleaner lines, and courage without aggressive tendencies." According to who? Direct quotes like that could need author attribution in-text. ✅ Changed altogether.
 * "didn't like" Contractions are discouraged. ✅
 * "No established registry wanted to be affiliated with a dog that drew the blood of its own kind for a living." Quoted from who? ✅
 * "It wasn't until" Contraction, check for this throughout. ✅
 * Add unit conversions throughout.✅


 * ✅ <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 💬 📧 17:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)