Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Staffordshire Bull Terrier/1

Staffordshire Bull Terrier

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Staffordshire_Bull_Terrier/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Significant changes since the last discussion here so closing as a keep. MONGO (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The content of this article is the subject of a long-running dispute on the talk-page, with no sign that I can see that resolution is imminent or even likely; it can't be considered stable. The text is far from neutral in tone, and contains so much off-topic material that it can't reasonably be considered to be focused on the topic either (as an example, material about James Hinks, who bred a totally different dog from this one, starting from the same nineteenth-century cross-bred dogs). I hope that others will comment on the quality of the sourcing and any possible WP:OR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist. Alas I was hoping we wouldn’t progress to this point, but given the continued, concerted and aggressive attempts to avoid acknowledging what sources say about the breed, the article does not present a NPOV. Below are the sources presented at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier that state either explicitly or implicitly that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Bull and Terrier are one and the same breed of dog:














































 * (machine translation)
 * (machine translation)




 * And after protracted discussions there with, still no sources have been presented that articulate a meaningful counter-narrative.
 * To try to avoid acknowledging this, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH (which is itself a form of OR) have been employed extensively throughout the article, so really the article should now also display Template:Original research. Further, like Justlettersandnumbers, I believe the focus on James Hinks is UNDUE, as is the completely UNDUE focus on the American Kennel Club's 1974 recognition of the breed which is given greater weight in the article than recognition of the breed by the Kennel Club.
 * Unfortunately, like Bull and terrier, this article is now Start class at best . The worst part is this situation was entirely avoidable. Cavalryman (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC).
 * Further, the article cites an unreliable WP:SELFPUBLISHed sources in the Nicolai article and the Zwettler self-published book, it cites the same Pearce book twice, it inexplicably cites "Amazon.co.uk" and "Issuu", and it provides no page number for the Worboys et al, Read, Hall and Percy FitzPatrick books. Cavalryman (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC).


 * It seems a large part of the dispute revolves around whether another article (Bull and terrier) pertains to the same subject or not. I'm not well-versed enough into these matters to be the judge of that, but I don't see how that affects the GA status of this here article. It seems suggestions range from merging the content of Bull and terrier into this article, or into the Bull-type terriers article, the latter solution which would have little to no consequences for the status of this article. FunkMonk (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify,, my reason for starting this review was not the dispute (which I've been watching for some time), but the state of the article itself. I haven't recently even tried to read past the lead, but that is already far from encyclopaedic – it's highly polemical, and has large amounts of material that should not be there. Problems such as the plural pronoun for a singular antecedent in the second sentence are relatively easily fixed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Further clarification after a bit of research that has stirred my memory - perhaps it will stir 's memory as well:
 * Aug 17, 2019 - the apology from Cavalryman for his inappropriate behavior, not unlike what he has exhibited here.
 * Sep 16, 2019 - In Option 3 - made an important observation about the history of the breed origins and the myth:
 * Cavalryman was pinged and responded as follows:
 * Both theories of origin are in the article. Nothing has changed from a century ago to verify anything beyond anecdotal accounts of what MIGHT have happened - myths and speculation as I've proven repeatedly. They are theories - nothing more - and we do. not. state. flat-earth theories in Wikivoice. It's time for Cavalryman to stop beating this dead horse.  Atsme 💬 📧 05:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Atsme, the previous dispute has no bearing on this discussion, but from memory that dispute commenced because you were attempting to say James Hinks was central to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier's development, now that's a fringe theory for you!!!
 * I won't attempt to speak for William Harris, but he did support the merger so it appears he agreed that the mountain of sources represent the mainstream view. Interestingly he retired from the project in disgust because, just like here, some editors were trying to discount reliable sources that did not conform with their opinions.
 * Now, as stated by the overwhelming majority of sources, the mainstream view is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was developed in the 19th century from crosses of Bulldogs and terriers (acknowledging a second theory), it was initially known by the names Bull and Terrier, Bull Terrier, Half and half and Pit dog (among other names), and it was given its current name in 1935 in order to achieve kennel club recognition. Until this is included in the article with prominence "in proportion to the prominence of ... [that] viewpoint in the published, reliable sources", this article does not present a neutral point of view. Further, this needs to be stated with no caveats like "unsupported theories or opinions" which is your opinion that is not reflected in any source whatsoever.
 * Finally, in order to prevent this article being branded with Template:Contradicts other, Bull and terrier needs to do the same. Given you have recently rewritten that article to conform to your opinions, this is relevant to this discussion. Cavalryman (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - this GAR is malformed and is being misused in an effort to settle a disagreement. Furthermore, this GAR and the NPOV tags are noncompliant with WP:NPOVN. After months of discussion, no consensus has been reached to either include the material presented by Cavalryman, or to merge Bull and terrier. The article has had no issues beyond the ones Cavalryman relentlessly brings forward as a result of OR and what appears to be an inability to distinguish figurative language and opinion from statements of fact - we do not use Wikivoice to state fringe opinions as fact - flat-earth theory. My concern is that this GAR is a back door attempt to get consensus for a merge proposal that, without a doubt, would cause great confusion.  Merging Bull and terrier to Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any other purebred article, would be a mistake because Bull and terrier is relied upon by several other articles for historic reference. Multiple purebreds share a common ancestry with the bull and terrier crosses, including but not limited to 6 distinct purebreds: Bull Terrier, Boston Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Miniature Bull Terrier, and American Pit Bull Terrier. No editor, except Cavalryman and JLAN, are convinced that the merger is warranted, or that there is a NPOV issue with those 2 articles. What we're seeing is DONTLIKEIT, OR and CIR. All the RS involved, including the actual breed registry that recognized the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a purebred in 1935 and approved the name (after rejecting "original" from the first submission for the name), the misinformation and POV pushing we've had to deal with goes beyond the pale. My goal as an editor who has helped promote/review 8 FAs and 19 GAs, my priority is to get the article right - I would not deny valid material or any material that would improve the article. I know better than to state unverifiable opinion in WikiVoice which is what Cavalryman is proposing, and JLAN supports. Any editor who has taken the time to read both Bull and terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and at least scanned the other articles with common ancestry, will see that all substantial views have been included under History, Early history, and Theories of origin. The Hinks dog was the first Bull Terrier that was recognized by The Kennel Club as a purebred in the 1800s, and yes, a group of breeders later split-off to refine their own strain of Bull Terrier, but common knowledge tells us that the modern dogs of today are NOT the same dogs as the heterogenous dogs that were crossed centuries earlier. To make such a claim defies logic and has nothing whatsoever to do with NPOV or the reason to delist a GA.  Atsme  💬 📧 19:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding: I can provide many more RS than what are listed below, and will add that most of the sources cited by Cavalryman, when read in context, actually corroborate my position and what the sources I've added have published less the figurative language and/or opinion by authors who are selling books. The statement that the Stafforshire Bull Terrier is the renamed bull and terrier is nothing more than figurative language in most cases, or it's born of breed politics and "bragging rights". We've all used figurative language - in fact, I did in this TP discussion, (pointing to photo) I said: 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. Cavalryman misconstrued it to be a statement of fact: *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.

¶Another breed that descended from these rough-hewn crosses was the Bull Terrier, which was molded into a distinct breed by James Hinks of Birmingham, England."
 * 829 Is the Staffie the True Bulldog? by David Hancock - "I believe it perfectly reasonable to consider the Staffie as the contemporary example of a bulldog and am saddened that we can no longer view the pedigree Bulldog as the sporting breed it once was. For the English Bulldog to lose its claim on its own breed title is more than a shame, it's a tragedy."
 * "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. When the founder of the Bull Terrier James Hinks added other breeds like the Collie to change the head shape of that breed, devotees of the original type of bull terrier cross remained loyal to their preferred type. Because of its early association with fighting it was, for some time, difficult to get recognition for the breed and it was not until the 1930s that The Kennel Club recognised the breed. It carried the name Staffordshire as the breed was developed in the “black country” of Staffordshire and northern parts of Birmingham.
 * "As dog fighting became popular, a new type of dog began to emerge – one that possessed the strength and courage of the bulldog but also had the agility, tenacity and intelligence required to excel in this new sport. To achieve this the breeders of the time crossed the bulldog with various breeds of small terrier. Not yet a breed in their own right, it was this cross between the Bulldog and the terrier that resulted in the early forbears of the Amstaff, known at the time as the bull-and-terrier. This bull-and-terrier would eventually evolve into a number of our modern breeds, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the Bull Terrier and the American Pit Bull Terrier."
 * "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." NOTE: The beginning statement in the History was misconstrued by Cavalryman as is the case in many other RS from which he cherrypicked single statements but when read in context, it is clear that his interpretation is incorrect. "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." The keywords are "confusion" and "hung on the breed at various times".  Atsme 💬 📧 20:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * [https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/dog-breeds/bull-terrier-history-behind-the-breed/ "From Bull-and-Terrier to Bull Terrier
 * "Test data from the UC Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory has also found the dominant haplotype 1 of the English bulldog in the French bulldog, Bull Terrier, Bull mastiff, Miniature bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, Wire-haired fox terrier, Beagle, and Coton de Tulear."
 * J Appl Anim Welf Sci. - "Furthermore, what was perceived as a Staffordshire bull terrier in the United Kingdom tended to be classified as a pit bull in the United States. Although what is deemed a pit bull is clearly of greater importance within a specific country or within a locale subject to BSL than it is between countries, it does bring into question the validity of determining breed identity based on appearance."
 * In our study, some of the largest differences between UK and U.S. participants' responses to whether each photographed dog was a pit bull were for the two dogs who more than 90% of UK participants considered to be Staffordshire bull terriers (Dogs 11 and 17). A high percentage of UK participants did not consider those two dogs to be pit bulls, whereas a high percentage of U.S. participants did consider them to be pit bulls. This is likely because in the United Kingdom, the Staffordshire bull terrier breed is perceived as separate from the pit bull and is not banned under the Dangerous Dog Act."


 * "Bloodsport and the Michael Vick Dogfighting ¶Case: A Critical Cultural Analysis by Wil Massey – "Dogfighting was particularly prominent in the Black Country’s landlocked coal and iron mining county of Staffordshire, where the new Bull and Terrier breed came to be known as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier (Semencic 1984)."


 * , as I've said just above your post, my reason for initiating this review was not the dispute (which I've been watching for some time), but the piteous state of the article itself. It is not well written, it is not well sourced, it is not neutral, it is not focused on the topic; yes, the prolonged dispute means that it is also not stable, but that is far from being the only problem. If you want to start rewriting the article to become more encyclopaedic I'm happy to collaborate to the best of my ability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Responding to ping - "piteous state", JLAN? And what do you propose would make it better?  Atsme 💬 📧 20:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Rewriting it with solid WP:RS, in clear plain neutral encyclopaedic English, and sticking to the topic in hand? As before, if you're interested in doing that I'm happy to collaborate to the best of my ability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, you just confirmed WP:NPOVN, DONTLIKEIT and CIR which is based on your own disclosure in this diff when responding to Cavalryman: FYI - the article does stick to the topic at hand - theories of origin - but your unfamiliarity with common ancesters of 6 distinct modern purebreds and what constitutes a modern breed may be interfering with your judgement as to what does and does not belong in the article. If it were simply a matter of copy editing, I welcome the collaboration, but your suggestion speaks in generallities to context, and that concerns me. I totally disagree with what you've stated, and am done with this discussion. It speaks for itself.  Atsme  💬 📧 20:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well,, since I wrote that I have actually done some reading and research into this topic, so while I'm still happy to acknowledge my extensive ignorance of it, I'm not quite as ignorant as I was; and after writing or re-writing literally hundreds of domestic animal breed articles, I believe I do actually have some limited understanding of what constitutes a breed. The topic of the article is absolutely not "theories of origin", but a British dog breed. Since this is not our page on the Bull Terrier, I suggest that a good first step might be to remove as off-topic all but a passing mention of Hinks and his development of that breed. Unless there's objection here I'll go ahead and do that soon. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Atsme, once again none of your sources disprove anything and again you are trying to misconstrue what citations state, the AKC is definitive about the Bull and Terrier being the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the confusion is because the breed was previously known by different names.
 * On another note, my library have just managed to get some scans of pages from the Dieter Fleig's Fighting dog breeds which prove you deliberately attempted to falsify the contents of that source here and here, the cited page makes no mention of any terrier whatsoever, it is exclusively about 20th century conformation show Bulldogs. I am happy to share this page with any impartial admin to verify. Are there any other sources in this article (or Bull and terrier) that you have falsified? Cavalryman (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC).
 * Responding to ping by JLAN - I would love collaborating with you, and it's good to know that you've been reading. It won't hurt for you to keep reading, starting with the RS I cited above, because you are still misunderstanding Theories of origin. Maybe if you liken it to etymology, it would help. Nothing has changed relative to the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier and what is written in the article now. The crux of the disagreement has nothing to do with that information; rather it is related to the fact that the article does not treat, as statement of fact or in "tone", that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the bull and terrier renamed. The reason it doesn't is because it is simply not true - such a theory aligns with the flat-earth theory that defies logic and the science behind it. Hinks is more than just a "passing mention" as it relates to the ancestry of all bull terriers/bull and terrier crosses, and once you understand that, you will have a better understanding of what Hinks contributed to both modern breeds back in 1860–1870 and before that, when there were no pedigreed dogs or verifiable purebreds. Everything in the article is important encyclopedic information. It explains why the modern Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier are considered 2 different purebreds today, and why the other purebreds that share common ancestry are separate breeds despite sharing the same ancestry. You will see that more clearly after you read, in context, the sources I've provided and even the sources Cavalryman provided without cherrypicking the flat-earth theories or conflating author opinions and figurative language with statements of fact. CONTEXTMATTERS, logic matters, and so does the science - such as this DNA study titled, Genomic analyses reveal the influence of geographic origin, migration and hybridization on modern dog breed development and this cladogram. If DNA wasn't considered a good source, I would not even mention it. In fact, I'm going to add those 2 links in my list of sources. Understanding the theories of origin is important, especially considering Bull and terrier relates to and serves as an important historic reference for all the other dog breeds of the same ancestry.  Atsme 💬 📧 21:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Responding to aspersions/PAs by Cavalryman – all are noted, and they don't change the fact that the bull and terrier of the 1800s is not the Staffordshire Bull Terrier renamed. I'm pretty sure Elon Musk wasn't in the UK in 1860 offering canine cryonics so those dogs could wake-up in the 21st century as Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Quoting David Harris, The Bully Breeds Kennel Club Books: page 39, Registration and Popularity - That is how the 6 distinct bull-and-terrier breeds became established. One by one, the AKC recognized five of them in this order–Bull Terrier, Boston Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and Miniature Bull Terrier. I've already provided the process for name choices as it was handled by TKC, the official breed registry with the authority to approve or reject the newly formed parent club, the new dog breed submission, and name choices.
 * RE: your aspersion that I - wow! That is an outright character assasination. I'm not sure if it rises to the level of T&S involvement but you owe me an apology. Despite being pressed for time, I went back and retraced my steps to find out what happened with Fleig.
 * Your diff (Staffordshire Bull Terrier) = what I found:
 * This diff is my initial edit citing Fleig. Why does it bother you to the point of Wikihounding me over it? I found the quote on pg 18 of this article, which I initially found in another WP article but can't recall the details. I cited only the cited source of the quote, and used my own editorial judgement and paraphrased. I didn't think it was necessary to cite the article for Fleig's quote. Are you alleging that the article incorrectly quoted/cited Fleig? If what you say is true, the university should probably be advised.
 * This edit removed the Fleig citation.
 * Your diff – noting this is about the Bull and terrier article, not related to this GAR = what I added in that History section included 4 sentences describing the appearance of bulldogs of the era because the bulldog is the prominent breed in the bull and terrier cross, and it's the History section. Is this not a "duh" moment? The rest was already there: I intended to add more despite your disruptive behavior, but here we are – wasting even more of our valuable time.  Atsme  💬 📧 08:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Atsme, if this new story is true, why did you use the source to cite the information that you did? In the two pages of the dispute you used the source to cite:
 * 
 * 
 * You later gave a different story about how you accessed it which does not conform to your new version of events. Having found a photo of the book's contents page on the internet here I questioned you about it, but you subsequently maintained your story . Not only does the page not include any of the information you cited, but the entire source does not state the Old English Terrier (or any other name for the breed such as Black and Tan Terrier etc) was used to create the Bull and Terrier, it does not list any breed/variety etc, it just says terriers were used.
 * This, in addition to your attempts to hound me, first trying to disrupt an article I recently elevated to a GA and later tagging another I rewrote with page issues  (in the month after this dispute commenced you made only three edits to dog related articles or TPs outside of those connected to this dispute) is a very concerning pattern of behaviour.
 * BTW, that paper you have cited states the Bull and Terrier was later recognised as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and ... that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was the progenitor to the American Pit Bull Terrier (so by extension the American Staffordshire Terrier etc). Cavalryman (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC).
 * Cavalryman, this GAR is not the place to discuss past edits that are no longer in an article, and certainly not the place to be discussing Bull and terrier which is not a GA. Take your concerns to the TP of the respective articles where editors can corroborate and fix the issues. I will no longer reply to your allegations here, and I will certainly not respond to your character assassinations and your bad faith interrogation. If it continues, I will simply file a complaint with T&S.  Atsme 💬 📧 17:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delist. This debate has gone on far too long and across far too many fora. In my opinion, either the article body - and not the article lead which should not include any breed history - should reflect both points of view or the article should be delisted. There is far too much reliability being placed on the AKC as a source of this breed's history. 14.2.195.135 (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The article does include all significant views in three subsections under History – fringe theories as well as the mainstream, scientifically supported FACTS including a DNA section, all properly cited. It also doesn't matter how many times a RS is cited, especially one of the oldest and most reliable breed registries in the world with the largest DNA database. The article does not and will not state any fringe theory in WikiVoice which is what started this entire reassessment is about.  Atsme 💬 📧 09:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This needs to be included in the article with prominence "in proportion to the prominence of ... [that] viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" which it currently is not, and with no caveats like "unsupported theories or opinions" which is one editor's opinion that is not reflected in any source whatsoever. And as has been explained repeatedly, most kennel clubs that provide a historical summary (including the American Kennel Club) state emphatically that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the Bull and Terrier (see here).
 * Also, more sources have been presented that state the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the ancestor of the various bull-type terrier breeds than state otherwise, this also is not represented adequately in the article. Cavalryman (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC).

I did not call for another round of debate from the parties. The article lacks a WP:NPOV and has been tagged accordingly. It cannot endure as a GA article as it currently stands. 14.2.195.135 (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The GAR has not achieved consensus or confirmed that there is a NPOV issue. There is no POV issue - the issue is the POV pushing to include a fringe view that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier IS the bull and terrier group of heterogeneous dogs; i.e., undocumented, unpedigreed mongrels or dog types of the 1800s that were named for their function, not a bonafide breed. No breed registries existed at that time.   Atsme  💬 📧 21:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Atsme, I have provided four dozen sources here that 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).
 * In addition to the over three dozen independently authored works (several of which are tertiary, but policy says they may be used determine due weight), there are three sources from the American Kennel Club, two from the Canadian Kennel Club, and one each from the Kennel Club of Britain, 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). Additionally, a number of those sources are cited in the article, one is cited eight times.
 * These are clearly mainstream views held by kennel clubs, independent authors and independent publishing houses. Yet the article does not acknowledge most of those points at all. Therefore the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject matter.
 * It remains my preference to fix the article, but you continue to resist all attempts at doing so. Cavalryman (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC).


 * Hopefully, an experienced closer will close this reassessment as it was basically used as a final resort to settle a POV dispute. Fortunately, more project team members started participating in the discussions, and the unwarranted tag-bombing has ceased; the tags have been removed, and the article is now stable again. I am slowly working toward making the article an WP:FAC.  Atsme 💬 📧 12:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)