Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

POV

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

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

WP:UNDUE emphasis on the recent Science paper

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". 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."

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."

References

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 [4]. Geogene (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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): [5]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"As explained by a geneticist" quote

Regarding the other issues I already pointed out with this [6] (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 [7]. Irizarry is affiliated with the National Canine Research Council [8], which is a subsidiary of the Animal Farm Foundation [9], which is an anti-BSL advocacy group [10]. 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)

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)

Finalé

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)

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)

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

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• " 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)

• "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)

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

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

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

• 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)

• 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)

  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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

Bronwen Dickey as a source

This [11] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Image layout

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Bull Terrier in Staffordshire Bull Terrier

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)

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)

British?

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)

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)

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)

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

Shortform?

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)

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

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)

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

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)

Quotes RfC

The following 2 quotes were removed from the article:

The biggest myth, though, is that pit bulls have danger in their DNA — going back to the original fighting “pits” in turn-of-the-century New York City through to the dog-fighting rings of recent decades — bred so that they’re born to kill.

But as a geneticist explains in “Pit Bull,” the likelihood that a dog bred for the worst behavior imaginable could somehow pass on its unique genetic heritage without it being diluted is “absolutely ludicrous.” Besides, dog aggression, as Dickey points out, is largely considered to be influenced most by a dog’s early development, and how it’s been socialized with other dogs and humans. ~Kelly Lauerman

And

Any dog can be trained to be a bad dog, just as they can trained to be a good dog.

~Bill Lambert, The Kennel Club, Staffordshire bull terriers: A question of class? BBC (2015)

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)

Sources

!Vote

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

• Yes - as nominator Atsme 💬 📧 19:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Per Parabolist, I can also support using neither quote. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

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

• 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)

  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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Nature vs nurture, and the claim that behavior is "shaped by their environment, not their breed"

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.
• We also examined the distribution of kennel club groups within the embedding, establishing that C-BARQ captures behavioral tendencies among breeds with shared historical working roles (Figure 3B; Table S3A). For example, terriers largely clustered in the bottom left of the plot, consistent with predatory behavior and dog-directed aggression

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. Emphases in the quotes above are mine. Geogene (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry - the majority has repeatedly disagreed with you, so please stop belaboring a meaningless and faulty opinion that is based on misinterpretations, and faulty reports and record-keeping. Spend more time with professional dog handlers and dog trainers - read what they have written, and watch it in action. Spend time outdoors with the dogs, go to dog shows, talk to real dog people - not to people who fear dogs, or who train them to fight - or who never owned a dog, have learned everything they know from a book and not through hands-on experience in the real world, where there are real world trials and error. You're wasting valuable time with claims based on material that predates modern breeds, and that is really out in left field, or right field depending on your preferences. Anything that predates modern registries is THE most unreliable of all sources. I am more inclined to believe Eve actually talked Adam into taking a bite of her apple. Atsme 💬 📧 17:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• I have to agree here with Atsme and the majority. Modern registries hold the most reliable sources. And that's a good suggestion she made about getting out in the real world with the doggies. I feel I learn the most by being out with the dogs and cats. Happy Trails! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnleelynn (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• I, too, feel like this is something that has been discussed and settled, and it's time to drop the WP:STICK. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Settled? This paper I'm talking about came out a couple of weeks ago. If you think there's a behavioral issue here (as evidenced by drop the stick), then I hope you have diffs, because that's a PA. Also, see WP:CCC. And Wikipedia:Academic_bias, I have no idea why two editors here believe personal experiences with dogs should have any influence at all over encyclopedic content. Geogene (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I've read the Cell paper you linked, and I would like to explain some things about it. Your first bullet point quote indicates that the authors concluded that there were dogs with differing behavioral characteristics before the time of modern breed classification. I think that's not controversial among editors here. Your second bullet point includes the term "non-coding variation", a term that appears repeatedly throughout the source. It may not be obvious to editors who do not have a molecular biology background what that means, but it's important for our purposes here to spell that out. Non-coding DNA is the part of the chromosome that does not code for genes. It plays a role in regulating the expression of the DNA sequences that are genes (how much or how little of the protein from that gene gets produced, and when), but two individual dogs whose DNA differs (for example) only in the non-coding regions would actually have the exact same genes. The authors make a big deal about this fact of "non-coding variation", and regard it as a major finding of their paper. What this means for our purposes is that a lot of the genetic differences between one breed and another are differences in gene expression, rather than differences in genes.

I'm fine with revising the sentence from this page that you quote, to cite the Cell paper in addition to the earlier Science paper, and to use more nuanced language in it.

But, that one sentence aside, the content dispute has been about how WP should treat the association of fighting behavior and modern-day breed name. And I'm not seeing the new paper changing the existing consensus about that. The authors discuss how there have been behavioral traits associated with working dogs, herding dogs, sporting dogs, and so on. They do, as you note, discuss "predatory behavior and dog-directed aggression", with the data for that shown in their Figure 3. What they are presenting there is something called "C-BARQ". They define that as: C-BARQ is a comprehensive and well-validated questionnaire for behavioral assessment composed of owner-reported numeric scores for 100 questions related to both breed group-typical and atypical or undesirable canine behaviors. Deep in the methods section, they say that: C-BARQ survey data was compiled as of July 2021 and contained 67,970 responses. Scores for the 14 previously defined behavioral factors assessed in C-BARQ (trainability, stranger-directed aggression, owner-directed aggression, dog-directed aggression, familiar dog aggression, dog-directed fear, stranger-directed fear, nonsocial fear, touch sensitivity, separation-related problems, excitability, attachment/attention-seeking, predatory chasing, energy level) were calculated as averages of the raw response values for the corresponding questions. So, these data are the responses of dog owners to a survey. And there are patterns of some breeds showing more or less of a given behavioral trait (whether due to genetics or environment). They also say: Our results revealed a unique repertoire of behavioral correlations for each lineage consistent with working role (see Table S3A); however, we also identified subsets of parallel behavior tendencies across lineages (Figure 3C; Table S3), underscoring the utility of identifying phenotypic and genotypic correlates within lineages versus across all breeds. (emphasis mine) That's a meaningful caveat – some behavioral tendencies go across breeds, and are not breed-specific.

What the authors do next is examine whether those behavioral things relate to genetics.

And here is what they report about it. The most significant positive correlations were between the herder lineage and non-social fear, and the terrier lineage and predatory chasing, the latter being consistent with working roles involving catching and killing prey. They then go on to examine those genetic variations, and they find that they are "non-coding variations". So – there are non-gene patterns that, for terriers, associate with being used as hunting dogs (not the same thing as dog fighting).

And that's what we are left with, for this page. The authors don't really give us anything that would say that SBTs have genes that emerged during the dog-fighting era and that are present in SBTs in modern times, that make them prone to violence against other dogs or against people. If anything, it's the opposite. But, as I said earlier, I'm fine with giving more nuance to the sentence about nature and nurture. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, I'm not a biologist, and where I saw "non-coding variation" I chunked that into my memory as "epigenetics," in scare quotes. It doesn't interest me much exactly how dog behavior is inherited, it interests me that dog behavior is heritable and that breed traits are more or less real, although there is room to argue how strong those traits are. The idea that every dog is a blank slate and you can love thousands of years of selective breeding out of one seems to like a Fringe concept to me, but it is belief that's widely held on the internet. More commentary later, there's a lot here. Are you aware that the much talked about Science paper is also based on an owner survey? Geogene (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

In reply to your last question, yes, I'm aware that owner surveys are what are used. Hyperbole aside, I can agree with you that breed traits are more or less real, and that fringe views online do not belong on this page. But I don't think that they are on this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

In response to the discussion so far, I have made some revisions: [12], [13]. In my opinion, these revisions are reasonable responses to the concerns that have been raised, while also respecting past discussions. (It's worth keeping in mind that the part about the Science study does already say that it: concluded that most behavioural traits are heritable.) I have left the "unbalanced opinion" tag, at the end of the sentence that now reads Globally, pit bull-types including Staffordshire Bull Terriers have made local news for acts of aggression, but breed advocates have raised questions about the veracity of visual breed identification, and media hype. I'm not seeing how that sentence is still in any way unbalanced, and I think the tag can be removed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the usage of "hype" in that a pejorative in Wikivoice? Geogene (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent IP edits

I see an IP is removing that content, and being reverted. I'm not sure that a consensus exists to include it in the first place. It's a cherrypicked primary research paper that's being given UNDUE weight. Geogene (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

What I'm seeing is multiple editors reverting the IP, and the IP continuing to revert without coming to the talk page, even though I issued them a 3RR warning. I've just requested semi-protection. If the IP (or anyone else) would like to come to this talk and join you in reexamining the past consensus, that's OK with me, although I think we need arguments that move the discussion forward instead of ignoring the very lengthy discussions that occurred already. If consensus really does change, that's fine, although it's not a vote, and it's not something to change by edit warring without discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I should add that the IP is doing a lot more than that, basically putting in anything to argue that Staffies are dangerous, including a ridiculously WP:UNDUE thing that is only about New South Wales. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you tagged that as being non-neutral. An observation that Staffies are responsible for a disproportionate number of attacks, sourced to reliable journalism, is no different from an observation that the AR-15 assault rifle is responsible for a disproportionate number of mass shootings, also sourced to journalism. The Australian Broadcast Corporation is a reliable source. The data on dog attacks was collected from government records. This would seem to be normal investigative journalism. Geogene (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say it requires a journal source. I said that it needs to cover the topic, as it has for some time, until all of the material, and not just the Science paper that you referred to before you changed the talk header ([14]), was removed entirely.

Is this an article about Staffies in New South Wales, or about them in general? If this is encyclopedic content, then surely the phenomenon would not be restricted to a single place. And supposedly being #1 on the list is not the same as being "disproportionate", which implies that #2 and the rest numbered far less. This is why I say it is WP:UNDUE, which is not the same thing as questioning whether the source is reliable. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

And I really am waiting to see if the IP(s) will join this discussion, rather than just edit warring, before wanting to evaluate whether the consensus has changed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I've restored what is pretty much the pre-IP version. I want to expand on why I think it's important to include the scientific information. In content about fighting dogs, there is a basic matter of encyclopedic writing that we have to engage with. Do we present these dogs as breeds that are, intrinsically and of their essential nature, aggressive and violent – or do we present them as dogs that have historically been trained and used by humans to be this way? There is a preponderance of recent source material on this distinction, and we need to follow that source material. And when we look at source material about whether or not dog breeds are born with particular intrinsic properties, that is going to be source material about genetics and biology. Ignoring or misrepresenting that source material is POV-pushing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure they're "trained" to be that way, and not selectively bred? Geogene (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a very good question, and we do, indeed, need to get that nuance right. And as you and I discussed at great length in a talk section just above, the most recent science on that very point is that it's primarily epigeneticsnon-coding DNA and training, with some element of selective breeding as well. And most of the genetically discernible selective breeding is for traits that are more related to uses such as hunting, than for propensity to fight. But of course, we've already discussed that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned misrepresentation of sources just above. Since this source: [15], was edit-warred by the IP, and endorsed here in talk by you, to support content that the breed leads attacks in NSW, I think it's worth pointing out that the source, as actually written, puts very prominent emphasis on: However, a respected veterinary behavourist says the focus should be on "deed not breed" and says the data does not reflect the reality. Funny how no one pointed that out until I did just now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Unless you're using some other definition of epigenetics than I am (heritable changes in gene expression that don't appear as alterations in the genetic code), then epigenetics is a product of selective breeding, and your statement it's primarily epigenetics and training, with some element of selective breeding as well is a false dichotomy, unless you're a Lysenkoist. The ABC is contrasting a single veterinary behaviorist's opinion with consensus reality that one particular breed is overrepresented in dog attacks. The one opinion doesn't hold weight. Geogene (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The source, as written, does not present the veterinarian's views as contrary to consensus. Epigenetic changes are stable, but not exactly heritable, as the word "heritable" is generally understood. And no, the last time I checked, I was not a Lysenkoist. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, while you have made a number of pointed remarks about loooong discussions, you and others here seem keen on participating in them. Geogene (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like to see a checkuser being done on these ips to see if they are the same person or potential sockpuppets. Something seems off. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

It's probably not too important, because the two IP accounts have stopped editing the last few days. Generally, checkusers will not run a check unless a named account is involved, because no one needs to be a checkuser to see the IP addresses. Here, they are both in Sweden, in two cities that are probably within commuting distance of each other. My guess is that it's one person. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Temperament?

What happened to the Temperament section? 213.17.118.30 (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

There hasn't been one for years. But this is covered in sections with other names. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Fatal attacks

Atsme regarding this [16] removed false information that is not helpful or in the cited source, are you sure that it's false that Staffordshires have killed people? [17] Geogene (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I checked the source, and it's in there, so I restored it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Really? Add the page # because I couldn't find it, and it is not a RS. So please add the page # where it clearly states that, and to what sources corroborated it. Thank you. Atsme 💬 📧 21:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It's BBC News. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)