Template:Vital article

	Staffordshire Bull Terrier has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 24, 2019 Good article nominee Listed August 24, 2022 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Dogs GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Dogs To-do: Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Dogs: Recent changes patrol: members can review the recent changes list to be aware of improvements or vandalism. Expand and improve citations: Akita (dog), American Bully, Artois Hound, Azawakh, Barbet (dog), Basset Fauve de Bretagne, Bavarian Mountain Hound, Bearded Collie, Beauceron, Berger Picard, Black and Tan Terrier, Black Norwegian Elkhound, Border Collie, Border Terrier, Bouvier des Ardennes, Bouvier des Flandres, Braque du Bourbonnais, Brazilian Terrier, Briquet Griffon Vendéen, Brittany (dog), Bullenbeisser, Bull Terrier, Ca de Bou, Cairn Terrier, Cardigan Welsh Corgi, Campeiro Bulldog, Central Asian Shepherd Dog, Chilean Terrier, Chow Chow, Colombian Fino Hound, Corsican Dog, Cretan Hound, Croatian Sheepdog, Czechoslovakian Wolfdog, Danish Spitz, Dingo, Dobermann, Dogue Brasileiro, Dunker, East Siberian Laika, English Cocker Spaniel, English Foxhound, English Toy Terrier (Black & Tan), Erbi Txakur, Estonian Hound, Estrela Mountain Dog, Finnish Lapphund, Flat-coated Retriever, French Bulldog, Galgo Español, Gaucho sheepdog, German Hound, German Shepherd, German Wirehaired Pointer, Glen of Imaal Terrier, Gordon Setter, Great Dane, Greek Harehound, Griffon Bruxellois, Guatemalan Dogo, Gull Dong, Halden Hound, Hamiltonstövare, Hanover Hound, Havanese dog, Hokkaido (dog), Hovawart, Ibizan Hound, Icelandic Sheepdog, Indian Spitz, Irish Setter, Irish Terrier, Irish Water Spaniel, Istrian Coarse-haired Hound, Jagdterrier, Jämthund, Kai Ken, Karakachan dog, Karelian Bear Dog, Karst Shepherd, Keeshond, Kokoni, Kooikerhondje, Koolie, Kuchi dog, Kuvasz, Labrador Retriever, Large Münsterländer, Lucas Terrier, Magyar Agár, Miniature Bull Terrier, Miniature Fox Terrier, Mongrel, Mountain Cur, Northern Inuit Dog, Norwegian Elkhound, Norwich Terrier, Old Danish Pointer, Old English Bulldog, Old English Sheepdog, Pastor Garafiano, Pastore della Lessinia e del Lagorai, Patterdale Terrier, Pekingese, Perro Majorero, Peruvian Hairless Dog, Petit Basset Griffon Vendéen, Pharaoh Hound, Plummer Terrier, Plott Hound, Polish Greyhound, Porcelaine, Portuguese Water Dog, Pudelpointer, Rajapalayam dog, Rat Terrier, Saarloos wolfdog, Sabueso Español, Saint Miguel Cattle Dog, Šarplaninac, Schipperke, Serrano Bulldog, Shikoku dog, Skye Terrier, Sloughi, Slovak Cuvac, Small Münsterländer, Smithfield (dog), Smooth Collie, South Russian Ovcharka, Spanish Water Dog, Standard Schnauzer, Swedish Vallhund, Tatra Shepherd Dog, Terceira Mastiff, Thai Bangkaew Dog, Tibetan Mastiff, Tibetan spaniel, Tornjak, Weimaraner, Welsh Hound, Welsh Terrier, West Siberian Laika, Westphalian Dachsbracke, Xoloitzcuintle, Xigou Stub class articles in need of development: Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, Argentine pila dog, Armant (dog), Assyrian Mastiff, Banjara Hound, Billy (dog), Braque Dupuy, Bruno Jura Hound, Bulgarian Scenthound, Ca Rater Mallorquí, Calupoh, Campeiro Bulldog, Can de Chira, Cane Paratore, Cantabrian Water Dog, Chortai, Córdoba fighting dog, Denmark Feist, East European Shepherd, English Shepherd, Faroese Sheepdog, Gończy Polski, Grand Griffon Vendéen, Gull Dong, Hanover Hound, Hygen Hound, Japanese Terrier, Kaikadi (dog), Kars dog, Koyun dog, Kunming dog, Kurdish Mastiff, Levriero Sardo, Mahratta Hound, Majorca Ratter, Maneto, Markiesje, Molossus (dog), Montenegrin Mountain Hound, Rampur Greyhound, Romanian Mioritic Shepherd Dog, Sapsali, Sarabi dog, Schweizer Laufhund, Segugio Maremmano, Segugio dell'Appennino, Sinhala Hound, St. Hubert Jura Hound, Taigan, Tatra Shepherd Dog, Tazy, Toy Bulldog, Treeing Cur, Vikhan Sheepdog, Westphalian Dachsbracke, White Shepherd Suggested Featured Articles due for re-assessment: Beagle (2007) Suggested Good Articles due for re-assessment: Swift fox (2008); Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (2009); Clumber Spaniel (2009); Russian Spaniel (2009); Sussex Spaniel (2009) Requested images: Briquet de Provence, Denmark Feist, Erbi Txakur, Jeju dog, Kaikadi (dog), Kars dog, Koyun dog, Levriero Sardo, Liangshan Dog, Perdigueiro Galego, Segugio dell'Appennino, St. Hubert Jura Hound, Tarsus çatalburun, Tibetan Kyi Apso, Vikhan Sheepdog, Villanuco de Las Encartaciones United Kingdom GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Ok, FunkMonk, 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. Atsme 💬 📧 17:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rest of review below. FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "is described in the May 2012 issue of PNAS" I'm not sure we need this level of detail, or rather, if we want to present the paper, do it with author ship and year, month and journal are inconsequential.

   Resolved

• "Some will argue that, despite undocumented origins, the Stafford originates solely from the original Old English Bulldog with no crossbreeding to terriers." This wording is rather vague, see WP:weasel words. Better to give examples of authors who have this opinion.

   Resolved

• "There were 60 dogs and bitches entered in the show" Is this distinction between dogs and bitches common tpday, or is it too archaic?

  Common, and a proper term for conformation showing.

• "In the Spring 2013 issue of The Stafford Knot" Not sure why we need the time of year.

  I think it is important as it was a decade ago that evolutionary factors in the breed standards were being misquoted and misunderstood. Readers don't always stop what they're reading to check dates of the cited sources. Atsme 💬 📧 17:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "describes some important evolutionary factors in the breed standards of the Staffordfordshire Bull Terrier that it is "very often misquoted and misunderstood."" Something odd about this sentence. Missing words?

   Resolved - grammar screw-up. Atsme 💬 📧 17:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "have compared 19th-century drawings or paintings to depict similarities in visual appearances" Also something incongruent about this sentence. Have compared them with the dogs, or pointed out similarities?

   Resolved - fixed grammar (although "depict" is typically used when describing/comparing artwork. Atsme 💬 📧 17:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Author and Stafford enthusiast, James Beaufoy, wrote" A year could be given for this and similar statements.

   Resolved by included book title & date. Atsme 💬 📧 17:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The late A.W.A Cairns, former editor of the online Stafford Magazine published by Southern Counties Staffordshire Bull Terrier Society,[26][27] wrote" When?
• "To some extent, Cairns aligns with Beaufoy "in the context of Kennel Club recognition the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a relatively 'new breed'"" Something missing, add "who stated" or similar?

   Resolved the two directly above - added when, and tweaked the context. Atsme 💬 📧 18:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• " Joanna de Klerk, DVM, author of The Complete Guide to Staffordshire Bull Terriers surmised that" Give year.

   Resolved Atsme 💬 📧 18:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 2017, a genome-wide study" Perhaps mention authorship or lead author et al.?

  There are too many authors to name: Science. Atsme 💬 📧 18:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, you'd only say "first author and colleagues, 2017". FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "A later DNA study that was overseen by Elinor Karlsson" Give year.

   Resolved Atsme 💬 📧 18:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I still think the image arrangement will be questioned at FAC, but you can leave that issue for then.

   Resolved Maybe? See what you think, FunkMonk

I think it's better spread out, but as noted below, there are now instead "sandwiching" issues with images on both sides of the same text. The multiple image template would be the easiest way of grouping related images and save space. FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The following sentence starts with a quotation but doesn't end with one, and if it's reallya quote, could need attribution: "The early proto-staffords provided the ancestral foundation stock for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the American Pit Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier.

   Resolved

• Link breed standard at first mention instead of the two duplinks you have now.

   Resolved

• "The breed was fully accepted by the Fédération Cynologique Internationale in 1954" Could mention the country.

   Resolved

• "hereditary cataracts has" Have?

   Resolved

• I wonder if characteristics section should come first? Now it comes after a long and daunting history section, which the reader has to get through before getting an understanding of what this breed actually is. In at least one other dog breed article I've reviewed, Bedlington Terrier, it came first, which worked well.

   Resolved

• These two statements seem contradictory "Over time, the two types were recognised by the AKC as separate breeds: the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier" and " but in 1936 they recognised the Staffordshire Terrier, later changing the breed's name to the American Staffordshire Terrier". So are they different breeds or two names for the same breed?

   Resolved

• "it was in 81st place on an American Kennel Club list" You have already defined the abbreviation of the name by this time, so you could just say AKC.

   Resolved

• "Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier fiction" Fiction seems an odd word for what the section describes, I thought it would be about cultural depictions or something. The name could be in quotations in the title also. Perhaps something like "Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier" misnomer?

  I went with misnomer.

• "Watchman – military mascot of the Staffordshire Regiment" Could give a year for context like you do with the others in the list.

   Resolved

• "As a result, Staffords are considered among the breeds with a stigma attached relative to the 'chav culture'"" Already stated at the end of the preceding section.

   Resolved

• Unless this particular breed was part of these DNA studies, it seems the following would be more relevant in condensed form near the related text in the Breed-specific legislation section? "Early DNA research found some genetic links between breed and behaviour, but those findings were based on a comparison of averages across breeds rather than individual dogs. A later DNA study that was overseen by Elinor Karlsson, director of vertebrate genomics at the Broad Institute, produced much different results, and was billed "the largest of its kind".[33] Researchers sequenced the DNA of 2155 dogs, examined the genetics, and surveyed owners and examined data of roughly 18,385 dogs. The conclusion was that most behavioural traits are heritable [heritability (h2) > 25%] whereas behaviour "only subtly differentiates breeds. Breed offers little predictive value for individuals, explaining just 9% of variation in behavior."[34]

Dog breeds that have been stereotyped as being aggressive, such as pit bull types, were not more aggressive than other dogs. Some breeds even defied their stereotypes. For example, the study found that pit bulls (though not an official AKC breed) were not more aggressive than other dogs, despite the centuries-old stigma of their pit fighting ancestry. The results of the research indicate that dog behaviour is "shaped by their environment, not their breed."[33]"

•  Resolved – moved both paragraphs to BSL section

• The infobox image is also used in the gallery, perhaps use another image for variation?

   Resolved

• Why show two similar examples of black brindle?

   Resolved

• The intro should be a summary of the article, so also needs a brief physical description.

   Resolved

• Explain the relation with the American Staffordshire Terrier in the intro?
• If the American Staffordshire Terrier is considered another breed, state their differences?

   Resolved - see what you think about AKC section

• I'm kennel blind now. It all looks good to me. Atsme 💬 📧 23:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a little odd that the leadimage has a copyright mark, but it may be fine anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Watermarks are discouraged, so could be painted out. But I wonder if it means anything that the uploader's name is different from the watermarked name... FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of images, I don't know if FA-people care about MOS:SANDWHICH. Maybe more pics could be moved to the gallery. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• FunkMonk, regarding watermarks and the conflicts with CC licensing vs types of watermarks: According to WMF, due to this lack of clarity, individual editors who are considering removing watermarks "should seriously consider the legal issues involved and consider consulting an attorney before doing so" (see Wikilegal/Removal of watermarks from Commons images). Uhm...that tells me the WMF takes no responsibility for things editors do, which includes removing a watermark. See c:COM:WM Atsme 💬 📧 04:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Gråbergs Gråa Sång, the images in the article accompany the sections they are in (hopefully). They were specifically chosen, not random pictures. You might want to review Australian Cattle Dog created by Elf, but not sure who helped get it promoted to FA. Another is Sheep which shows the staggering because there was enough text to do so without sandwiching. One of my FAs not only includes pictures, it also includes video clips, and nearly 10 years after it was first promoted to FA, it was chosen again as an FA to run on WP's front page. Atsme 💬 📧 04:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very concerned that Atsme is cherrypicking sources in the BSL section to try to make it seem that the breed has no genetic predisposition to aggression. There's no evidence that her opinions represent a scientific consensus, for example see [1]. And there are medical journal papers that find there is a risk in dog breed ownership [2] when it comes to pit bulls. Geogene (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the Breed-specific Legislation section should focus only on legislation: these are the legislative acts that were passed, and these are the arguments that were put forth specifically about them. That way, the more generalized material about breed disposition could be deleted from that section of the page, and addressed instead elsewhere on the page. Elsewhere, I see no reason why sources on both "sides" of the controversy cannot be presented alongside each other. If there are disagreements about due weight, then have an RfC.

I also think that concerns about a section POV can be raised focusing on the content itself. It is inappropriate to frame it in terms of a specific editor, especially when (as it appears to me from looking at the page editing history) the edits concerning the disputed source material were not made in recent days. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just made this edit, in accordance with what I said here: [3]. I added the two sources you provided; please feel free to expand on that or add more. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Tryptofish - this article passed the GAR, and if you will count up from the bottom to the 6th  Resolved in the section above, you will see why I moved those paragraphs to the BSL section. FunkMonk has been working diligently conducting a peer review for this article before it is nommed as an FAC. j/s Atsme 💬 📧 00:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are more reliable sources that cover the issue, it would be a good idea to list them here so proposed wording of new text could be evaluated before insertion. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme and FunkMonk, I'll gladly leave all of those issues to other editors. For what it's worth, it does appear to me that a section about legislation should deal only with legislation, and I have a hunch that FA reviewers would agree with me about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tryp, I'm fine with where it is. If it works for you, it certainly works for me, and based on what FunkMonk said, it works for him, too. I don't think this article needs anymore detail. It is very well summarized and represents every aspect there is to represent about this purebred conformation show dog/family pet. Atsme 💬 📧 18:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pssst...FunkMonk, I added another quote box and moved an image up to the pit bull section that Tryptofish added. I really like The Cut article because of its factual accuracy, as it cites the book by Bronwen Dickey on Amazon, and you can look inside it. The only part in The Cut article that rubs me the wrong way is the picture of Captain Jean Luc Picard instead of Captain James T. Kirk but then Kirk has Dobermans, so I'm cool with it (sadly, MPants isn't here to spar with me). What d'yall think? Should we save The Cut and Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon for Pit bull? Atsme 💬 📧 20:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't hurt, I'd think? FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like Porthos, but he was a beagle, so carry on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This [4] is garbage tier sourcing. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, popular books by non-experts are not what you should use to write about science, especially in controversial subject areas. Geogene (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Telling other editors that something is "garbage" is not likely to win you any fans, and if you keep this up I may feel the need to do something about it.

But I'm fine with your edits removing the quotes. They seemed undue weight to me, and somewhat overly promotional. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was very appreciative of Tryp moving the blocks of text from BSL into a new section, and I'm ok that he deleted the comparison of an older study with the newer study. It was clearly an improvement. I don't think what Geogene did was an improvement when he reverted the 2 quotes based on DONTLIKEIT. FunkMonk seemed to think the quotes were ok, and I thought it was a nice touch. As for Bronwen Dickey, the NYTimes reviewed Dickey's book "Pit Bull" in their science section, so here is that link. It's ok to use secondary sources that are not science articles - dog articles are not subject to MEDRS. The other quote you removed was a statement by Bill Lambert, head of health and welfare at Crufts which happens to be an annual international dog show sponsored by the Kennel Club, held in the UK. It is the largest dog show in the world. So why not let me work on this FAC, and let the reviewers decide what should stay or go. Atsme 💬 📧 01:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So why not let me work on this FAC, and let the reviewers decide what should stay or go. is WP:OWN. Geogene (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not OWN. It's called collegiality, courtesy and to stop POV pushing and allow uninvolved editors to decide. DONTLIKEIT is a poor reason to revert edits. Atsme 💬 📧 15:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to cut this out. Stop calling stuff garbage, stop calling stuff POV pushing, and stop telling editors they cannot participate. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where did anyone say an editor cannot participate? Atsme 💬 📧 13:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These two full paragraphs on one recent paper in the journal Science:

Early DNA research found some genetic links between breed and behaviour, but those findings were based on a comparison of averages across breeds rather than individual dogs. A later DNA study published in April 2022 and overseen by Elinor Karlsson, director of vertebrate genomics at the Broad Institute, produced much different results, and was billed "the largest of its kind".^[1] Researchers sequenced the DNA of 2155 dogs, examined the genetics, and surveyed owners and examined data of roughly 18,385 dogs. The conclusion was that most behavioural traits are heritable [heritability (h2) > 25%] whereas behaviour "only subtly differentiates breeds. Breed offers little predictive value for individuals, explaining just 9% of variation in behavior."^[2]

Dog breeds that have been stereotyped as being aggressive, such as pit bull types, were not more aggressive than other dogs. Some breeds even defied their stereotypes. For example, the study found that pit bulls (though not an official AKC breed) were not more aggressive than other dogs, despite the centuries-old stigma of their pit fighting ancestry. The results of the research indicate that dog behaviour is "shaped by their environment, not their breed."^[1]

This is excessive emphasis on one novel research finding that fails WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:PRIMARY. I suspect this will not be the last word in the heritability of dog behavior, and it would be better to use literature reviews to write that. Interestingly, one of the co-authors of that paper (Hekman) has told the AKC she would like people to stop misrepresenting her work, because she says, the breed of a dog does matter in terms of its behavior [5]. Geogene (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it was too much weight to give to that source. I made this edit, greatly shortening it (and removing some repetition): [6]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the other issues I already pointed out with this [7] (not an appropriate use of a quotation, and not an appropriate source for a scientific claim), it should be pointed out that the geneticist in question is Kris Irizarry of Western University [8]. Irizarry is affiliated with the National Canine Research Council [9], which is a subsidiary of the Animal Farm Foundation [10], which is an anti-BSL advocacy group [11]. I don't think it's quite appropriate to just present that quote as coming from a random, unnamed geneticist. Geogene (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and will add that your argument sounds more like a reason to excuse your edit warring reverts of the quotes I have added while quoting essays as a reason for removal, or scholarship as long as the scholar aligns with your POV. I choose not to argue or edit war with you over this issue, and will also ignore your PAs. I will call an RfC to settle it once and for all, and hope that my doing so will draw attention to your behavior here, inadvertently or otherwise, as well as with your behavior at Pit bull. It kinda spurs memories of a past editor that went by the user name Nomopsbs later changed to NormalOp, and who is now site banned. There have been other BSL advocates/POV pushers who attempted to create similar disruption at this article when I was working on getting it promoted to GA status. The patterns are there for all to see, but I will AGF and call the RfC because what I want is for this article to be promoted to FA, and could care less about the advocacies. Atsme 💬 📧 15:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following 2 quotes were removed from the article:

And

Should they be allowed to remain in the article?

• Option 1: Yes
• Option 2: No.

By: Atsme 💬 📧 15:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Updated: Added the RfC template to get wider input. Atsme 💬 📧 13:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

!Vote

Note: WP:WikiProject Dogs has been notified of this discussion. Atsme 💬 📧 19:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC) [reply]

• Yes - as nominator Atsme 💬 📧 19:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No and Yes. (Don't tell me to do one or the other.) I accept that both quotes are adequately sourced. But there is also a stylistic editorial choice to be made here. I think that having both quotes clutters the page and adds little value. On the other hand, I'm fine with using one and omitting the other. I'd say include the Lambert quote and leave out the other one. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Parabolist, I can also support using neither quote. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strange RFC. The first quote is quoting an opinion(?) piece quoting a book, no idea why you would include this and not just something from the book directly. Not a tacit endorsement of doing that, either, for the record, but it absolutely DQ's the quote in question. And the second quote adds nothing informative to the article, it's fluff. This is an encyclopedia article about a dog breed, not a paean about the misunderstood. Seems like the removals were good. Parabolist (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This RfC was added to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Current Atsme 💬 📧 13:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not in their current form - the second quote is a sourced quote, although as Parabolist says above, it's not obvious that it adds much. I'm ambivalent on it's inclusion. The first quote, however, needs rephrasing. Saying "as X says..." is implying that Wikipedia agrees with X and is making a statement of that agreement in authorial voice. Including the quote is not problematic to my mind, but it should be done in a neutral manner, allowing the reader to make up their mind as to its accuracy. Anaxial (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Anaxial – both are the exact quotes straight from the RS, neither are prepended using WikiVoice but are the actual quotes, so perhaps I should use double quotes and then single quote what the first author is quoting. I did it that way to avoid OR, and WikiVoice. If you could see it as it appeared in the article before it was removed, it may make more sense to you. Atsme 💬 📧 17:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'd suggest that it would be better to include the quote from the book, rather than the quote from the other book about the quote from the first book. It would make things clearer to the reader, and be more concise to boot. Anaxial (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak no We should rephrase the quotes and keep the sources in the article. (Summoned by bot) I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Er, no. Are we on the right page? We're being asked if we should quote someone's opinion on the American Pit Bull in our page on the unrelated (British) Staffordshire Bull Terrier? Wouldn't the pit bull page be the place for that – if anywhere? And on the second one, sorry but no, generic content about dogs belongs in the dog article, even if it happens to be sourced to a page about this breed (it doesn't exactly help that he can't write one single sentence without a grammatical error). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Uhm, Tryptofish added the section titled Pit bull comparisons – are you ok with that? That section is where the quote belongs. Perhaps you have a better reason to not include it? All I can say at this point is that after my involvement helping to promote and/or review 8 FAs and multiple GAs, I have found that the quotes work well. j/s Atsme 💬 📧 19:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I dunno, Atsme. Just my opinion of course, but a page titled Staffordshire Bull Terrier should be about the ... um, well, you know ... Staffordshire Bull Terrier. If anyone wants to do a comparative study of the various breeds derived from the bull-and-terrier, then that might fit into that page, or otherwise in a new page at a title such as Bully breeds (currently a redirect, it seems). It's out of place here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there is a difference between "comparisons" with another breed, and a quote "about" another breed. Material about this breed can certainly include comparisons with other breeds, where relevant (and it's very relevant here), but I think Justlettersandnumbers makes a good point about a quote that is about a different breed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 1: No, the quote from Kelly Kerry Lauerman doesn’t appear to need to be attributed WP:INTEXT, isn’t at all necessary for the page about staffies and is excessively long. It also shouldn’t be in a pull quote box and should use correct formatting … and spelling of his name.

2: No, as has been pointed out, the Lambert quote is a bit fluffy, and realistically it reads like it’s being used to say something else. Maybe there’s a more direct (to-the-point) quote from the same source that could be used instead though?

Just to be pedantic, but maybe helpful for future: I don’t particularly think either quote should be “disallowed” (in the sense of “banned”) but it’s more that they aren’t that necessary or useful, especially in their current/proposed length and form. The better question would have been the simpler: Should [they] be included in the article? — HTGS (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak No for the former, and No for the latter, per the reasoning of Justlettersandnumbers and the replies to their vote. The quotes, to me, feel somewhat out of place to me, as well. (Summoned by bot) JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 21:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No and Yes I'm afraid everyone is failing to notice that the second quote is definitely about Staffordshires. It's merely that this is made clear only by the title of the source and by reading the context in the source. The first is not about Staffordshires atall however. Invasive Spices (talk) 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Hi, Invasive Spices, I get what you're saying about the first quote. I was not considering that others were not aware that Dickey's book – Breed Glossary: Pit Bull Breeds, she lists 4 dog breeds: American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and American Bully. This is one of the problems we are dealing with as an encyclopedia. See Brandolini's law because it applies in our pit bull (and all-related) articles. Those dogs are lump summed as pit bulls regardless of pedigree, training, socialization, etc. – layperson terminology, not encyclopedic, and then you get into use-mention distinction issues. Media hype is to blame in large part because the term is clickbait. So my question to you is how would you quote Dickey if she doesn't mention the Stafford directly, but is still referring to it? These are important quotes that will help our readers to better understand relative problems. Atsme 💬 📧 17:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If it isn't apparent to the reader that a quote is really about the SBT, that's a pretty strong reason to omit it (as opposed to having to do something complicated to explain it). I think readers can readily understand the problems based on what the text of this page says, and that the quotes are not the critical factor in how easy or difficult it is to understand the subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now looked at Dickey and I suggest not quoting her. The book is only a RS for public perception. The author is a journalist and not a scientist. I do note that discussing Terriers as a vague group is common https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159114000823 . This may necessitate moving this discussion to Bull Terrier or Terrier with only a small mention and section link in this article. Invasive Spices (talk) 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• No to both per Parabolist. Those two quotes add little value to the article and seem out of place. Some1 (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Specific quotes from specific people seem insufficient at best and look more like quotes from a fan. If the article needs to discuss this, I think more references should be used to craft a more general statement about this topic. Something like staffies are often perceived to be aggressive [ref] but they might not be [refs]. Bleah. NOTE that I did not just read the current article,simply skimmed it. Elf | Talk 00:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The quotes are notable by notable people. The edit summaries given for reverting them included an essay, and a scholarship claim. Dickey is a scholar, and Lambert is a figure of authority with Crufts, the worlds largest dog show sponsored by the Kennel Club Atsme 💬 📧 15:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. Is this a talk page discussion for a local consensus, or an actual WP:RFC. If the latter, it needs to be listed/templated as such. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the template. Atsme 💬 📧 13:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding - common use per Wikipedia:Quotations#Recommended use as it applies to this article:

In some instances, quotations are preferred to text. For example: When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editors of controversial subjects should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be "from Wikipedia".

Atsme 💬 📧 15:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I collaborated on the Sissinghurst Castle Garden FA, that page includes a lot of quotes. Those quotes are from the people who were the major people behind the garden, and elaborate on their thinking about the garden. Here, I see it differently. These are quotes from third parties that are selected to make a point about a particular controversy. I agree that having these as attributed quotes is far more appropriate than saying it in Wikipedia's voice, which is the point of the guideline above. But here there is also the issue of whether it is WP:DUE to highlight these particular expressions of view, and that's what the RfC seems to me to be about. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is as DUE as comparing the Stafford to a pit bull. One of the people quoted above is indeed behind the purebred Staffordshire Bull Terrier being a conformation show dog and is a respected authority with Crufts where these dogs are shown – it is like the Westminster Kennel Club show here in the US, but much larger. As for Dickey, the NYTimes review states: She points out that “pit bull” isn’t a breed but a social construct, including four breeds: the American pit bull terrier, the American Staffordshire terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier and the American bully, but also any mixed-breed dog with a blocky head, white chest markings and a brindle coat. It helps to know some of the background of why the term pit bull is even used, and why the Staffordshire Bull Terrier in the UK is not banned in the UK, but they are banned and/or restricted in a few cities/counties in the US. That is the kind of information an encyclopedia is supposed to provide, and yet I'm getting this feedback to not provide it...perhaps not in the form of a quote box, but it does need to be included. Atsme 💬 📧 21:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just ctrl-f:d "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" in this article. Would it be ok to use "Stafford" for subsequent mentions in article text? Not for quotes and titles of works, of course. Or even "SBT" if that is something sources do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think encyclopedias should stay away from acronyms but common names are ok. Atsme 💬 📧 13:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Atsme, 'Stafford' is fine, acronyms and childish nicknames are not. Mostly it should be possible to avoid endless repetitions of the breed name by using "it", "the dogs", "dogs of this breed" and so on. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Staffy owners, breeders, etc. refer to them as Staffies (sing. Staffy or Staffie). Both of those in WP redirect to this page. I've never heard anyone call them just "Stafford", although I see a few sites that use that term. The article does introduce "Staffy," which in my experience is the common shortened breed name. But if everyone else prefers Stafford, I'm not going to spend time researching relative usage patterns. Elf | Talk 00:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: I had just moved the images to left and right, right before you undid the whole thing. I don't understand: why should all the images be on the right side of the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tryptofish! I'd moved them to the right before because of the toothpaste effect, your edit partially undid that change. When I looked at your last version of the page there was a line that read "Stafford Magazine.^[34] In". I hope you'll agree that that is not good typographic layout? However, that problem was caused by an image of a Bull Terrier with extensive translation, which I've removed as off-topic, so my subsequent edit may have been mistaken. Could you kindly just remind me of the accessibility advantages (or indeed other advantages) of having images on the left? I'm not aware of any, and routinely move images to the right for a cleaner and more readable look to the page, at any resolution. I don't use the mobile interface much, so don't know what the output looks like there (but I know it mostly handles images really, really badly). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just undid my edit about that BT image, pending what we do here. To some extent, I was reacting to the fact that I had just put a lot of work into rearranging the images, and then you almost immediately undid all of that. I'm not sure whether that image was actually a BT, or of a Stafford in an antiquated presentation. Atsme would know about that. Sorry about that line break. At my display, I didn't see that, but I agree it should be corrected in some way.

As for images left and right, I've long done it to break up image stacking. But looking just now at what MOS currently says, you are right that the preference is to avoid having them on the left. (They keep changing that, which is confusing.) When I worked (not that long ago) on the Sissinghurst Castle Garden FA, we did have a lot of left-right alternation, and even (at the advice of a long-tenure FA leader) had some sandwiching. Go figure. If you work your way through Talk:Sissinghurst Castle Garden#Suggestions, you will see some post-FA discussion about image layout and accessibility. My inclination here is to move at least a few images left, in those places where they stack up on the right, but I can be flexible about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tryptofish, for a most accommodating reply. I really don't want to insist on any one way of arranging images – which is anyway one of the most minor of the problems in this article – but I've never been able to see the point of zigzagging them. My take: if they don't fit on the right then there are simply too many, so some should be either removed or moved to a gallery. I'm sorry that my edit was 'immediate', I didn't look at the timestamps, just the readability of the page itself. My principal concerns here are the over-emphasis on other/American breeds, and the almost complete omission of the derivation of this dog from the old bull-and-terrier cross-breed – this was the subject of an acrimonious and long-running dispute here, which ended in the loss of a highly valued editor. I'm still undecided whether to just leave it in the state it's in or try to do something to improve it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say that I'm dog tired for now, so I'll leave it for a later time. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I looked back at the layout, and between what you removed and where I moved images from one section to another, it looks fine to me as it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the lead to balance with the body text, and provided "a concise overview of the article's topic" per MOS:LEAD. The reason Staffords are called Bull Terriers is important in establishing context. The lead also "summarizes the most important points, including any prominent controversies." I am undecided as to whether or not to add back the ancestral image of a bull-terrier with Dutch caption; however, for historic significance it should be included as it shows the size prior to further refinement when developing the modern breeds. Perhaps with text translation in the body in lieu of a caption would work? I do not want to eliminate important text for the sake of aesthetics. I am also not aware of any FA being rejected because of too many images, so if a diff exists that supports such an occurrence, please share it. My experiences as a former publisher and FA/GA promoter/reviewer tell me readers appreciate images – pictures speak a thousand words. As for the mastiff heritage, and the larger sized bulldog x mastiff crosses that were used for bull- and bear-baiting, keep in mind that it wasn't until those sports were outlawed and dog fighting went underground that the smaller Staffords were being developed.

It took nearly a century to get the Stafford recognized as a purebred by the Kennel Club (1935) because of the stigma of its fighting ancestry, and the fact that dog fighting was still a clandestine sport that favored the bull terrier crossbreeds. From a BBC article: "Staffies come with a degree of baggage in that respect as they have emerged as a modern-day folk devil. Their reputation then may demarcate boundaries between social groups. Again, these boundaries may be defined along class lines." The claims that iron workers and coal miners (chav culture?) are the creators of the modern Staffordshire falls more in line with story telling that omits factual details that are documented by the KC and other dog breed registries: It carried the name Staffordshire as the breed was developed in the “black country” of Staffordshire and northern parts of Birmingham. What breeders had to do over the course of nearly half a century speaks volumes to the substantial developmental changes that had to be made in order to lose the stigma, and explains why the history of this breed is important, as is debunking the unsubstantiated, unverifiable claims and folk lore that created the term pit bull. The majority of our articles relative to pit bulls are an embarrassment for an encyclopedia, and need serious updating to eliminate the media hype, folk lore, inaccurate information and other anecdotal reports based on visual IDs proven to be untrustworthy, and that are quite simply uncorroborated and unverifiable.

My thoughts based on verifiable evidence and factual information, the Black Country was indeed industrialized (1680–1791), and there are stories of iron workers and coal miners who bred Stafford bull terrier crosses from a heterogeneous group of dogs bred for function but the modern development of the purebred Stafford that we know today was not limited to just that status of dog breeder. We do not know what pedigree of dogs were being bred in the Black Country, and apparently that became an issue for the KC as well, considering they initially rejected them as purebreds, and also later rejected the name Original Bull Terrier because they had already long since recognized the Hinks' Bull Terrier prior to breeders developing the round nose. The Bull Terrier pictures I had included that were since removed are important to the history of the Stafford. A similar story applies in the US when the AKC refused to recognize Staffords until 1974. To limit the development of the modern purebred to only iron workers & coal miners is inaccurate and rings of status-ism, and probably helps explain why we are now seeing articles about BSL being tainted by racism: Sage, Lewis & Clark Law School, and Nova Law Review. Keep in mind, Joe Dunn, founder of The Cradley Heath Club and show secretary, led the effort to get Staffords recognized by KC. He & his wife owned the old Cross Guns Pub where the organizational meeting took place. Others who worked with Dunn included Joe Mallen, a chainmaker, and Tom Walls, an actor, who also contributed to developing the breed, and helping to get it recognized by the KC as a purebred conformation show dog. Another group of individuals in the US did similar to get the Stafford recognized by the AKC. Atsme 💬 📧 14:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was uncomfortable about that image being removed, but I'm not really that knowledgeable about the source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, is this or is this not a British breed of dog? With this edit I edited the lead to include this fairly basic piece of information, and also attempted to state in simple terms how and when this breed originated. That information was removed by Atsme with this edit, with the (partial) edit summary "Fix lead for accuracy". So, Atsme, do you actually believe that this is not a British breed, or merely that we just shouldn't bother to mention such a trivial detail in the lead? Does anyone else have any objection to those few sentences being restored to the beginning of the lead?

We read in the page that "Within the broad sweep of dog history, the story behind the modern Stafford is rather brief and somewhat confusing" and "The unregulated breeding history and inconsistent genetic makeup of the Stafford's early ancestry have led to misconceptions about its origins", but this is simply untrue or WP:OR. We know exactly how the breed originated, down to the name of the pub where the initial meeting was held and the names of at least some of those who were there; we know exactly what stock the breed derived from (the bull and terrier crosses). We know why the Kennel Club didn't at first want to accept breed name (because it included the word "original"), we know in which year a compromise was reached and the breed created (1935). Where is the confusion? I propose that we replace all that stuff with clear and simple outline of the history as reported in dozens (yes, literally dozens) of WP:RS. Any objection? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JLAN, I disagree, and if you are challenging what I have written, then I will cite the sources in the lead which is really frowned upon at FAC. I can promise you there is no OR in this article, at least not by me. And I disagree that we know exactly how anything happened prior to the two Joe's efforts to create their strain of Bull Terrier; i.e., Stafford. This article is factually accurate, and the science backs it up. You might want to look at those DNA studies a bit closer, especially the cladograms. As for "British breed" - mmmm...kinda reminds me of...you know...made in America nationalism. No, not good. See this article: But historical records suggest that the alaunt is likely the common ancestor shared by the bulldog and the mastiff, which was brought over from Asia. However, many say that bulldogs descended from mastiffs. And this study: After 100 bootstraps, 91% of breeds (146/161) formed single, breed-specific nodes with 100% bootstrap support (Figure 1). Of the 15 breeds that did not meet these criteria, seven (Belgian Tervuren, Belgian sheepdog, Cane Corso, Bull terrier, Miniature Bull terrier, Rat terrier, American Hairless terrier) were part of two- or three-breed clades that were supported at 98% or greater,... And that same study states: 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). Hmmm...Irish bred? I think for the sake of accuracy we stick with the science and documented evidence, rather than anecdotal claims. AKC, which has the largest DNA database in the world for dogs, published the following: ...modern DNA research has shown us that the idea of a single progenitor spawning all similar types of canines across the globe, from mastiffs to sighthounds, is simply false. Instead, these archetypal body styles – heavy boned and wrinkled, or light boned and aerodynamic, for example – emerged spontaneously in breed populations around the world.

The bull dog was simply a large mutt that fought bulls, and it is the bulldog that puts the bull in Bull Terrier. The word “terrier” comes from the Middle French chien terrier which means "dog of the earth", but then look at the DNA evidence. I guess it depends on what source we cherrypick as to what we want to include, but I've tried to keep it very neutral and science based because we are a global encyclopedia. The bull and terrier descends from different types of dogs from all over Europe and Asia. Dogs are not unique to the British Isles, although many excellent breeds of dogs have been developed into some pretty remarkable strains of purebreds. Do we forget about them and focus only on a little group of dog breeders in Staffordshire who managed to get their strain of dog recognized by the KC? What about the Chinese, Roman, and French origins? Also keep in mind the power of immigration and how dogs became a global commodity very early on. The Staffordshire crossbreeds arrived in the US before the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was accepted as a purebred by the KC. I believe they were also in Canada and Australia among other places around the world. Atsme 💬 📧 23:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, I know exactly zero about the answer here. But I do know that both of you are editing entirely in good faith, and I really hope that you two can figure this out amicably. Instead of posting lengthy paragraphs of comments (something I'm often guilty of, myself), please try to make a list (numbered or bulleted), with each list entry describing succinctly a single point of dispute, or disputed source. I think that if you break this down into a list of digestible points, and examine them one-by-one, it will be easier to find a happy outcome. Good luck to both of you! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a win-win, Tryp! Thank you!! Atsme 💬 📧 00:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed out before that this article makes dubious a claim about nurture overriding nature, The results of the research indicate that dog behaviour is "shaped by their environment, not their breed".[53] which is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim based on a single, recent paper in the journal Science. There's a new paper out in Cell, Domestic dog lineages reveal genetic drivers of behavioral diversification, that makes it fairly clear that it's the view of the scientific community as a whole that there are heritable differences in typical dog behavior between breeds, and that these differences are the result of selective breeding for specific tasks. And that these behaviors are actually older than the modern breeds themselves--for example, herding drive is older than any one of the modern herding breeds, but that all those breeds inherited their behaviors from the herding dog ancestors that pre-date breed formation. Quotes from the paper in Cell:

• Canine behavioral diversification predates modern breed formation
• Ancient non-coding variation drives working role-related dog behaviors
• Selective breeding of domestic dogs has generated diverse breeds often optimized for performing specialized tasks. Despite the heritability of breed-typical behavioral traits, identification of causal loci has proven challenging due to the complexity of canine population structure.
• We overcome longstanding difficulties in identifying genetic drivers of canine behavior by developing a framework for understanding relationships between breeds and the behaviors that define them
• To produce dogs that will reliably display traits conducive to executing these functions, humans have selectively bred toward a variety of behavioral ideals. Therefore, genetic analyses of domestic dogs present a system for studying how behavioral diversity is biologically encoded, a consequential yet often intractable area of inquiry.

This article should not continue to make claims that behavior and breed are unrelated to each other. Additionally, I'm concerned that similar content may have added to other articles. Geogene (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]