Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706124054/http://www.ankc.org.au/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=71 to http://www.ankc.org.au/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=71
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fci.be/uploaded_files/076gb98_en.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031105035003/http://www.nzkc.org.nz/br280.html to http://www.nzkc.org.nz/br280.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070306152038/http://mail.ukcdogs.com/UKCweb.nsf/80de88211ee3f2dc8525703f004ccb1e/dd9391625058cc238525704d006966a7?OpenDocument to http://mail.ukcdogs.com/UKCweb.nsf/80de88211ee3f2dc8525703f004ccb1e/dd9391625058cc238525704d006966a7?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Request received to merge articles: Irish Bull Terrier into Staffordshire Bull Terrier; dated: November 2018. Proposer's Rationale: Irish Bull Terrier aka Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier should be merged here (or possibly create a redirect and add a paragraph explaining the crux of this 2002 article published in Telegraph - or maybe a speedy would be appropriate. It's a fictitious breed, has no recognized breed registry or any RS that either verifies such a breed exists or passes WP:GNG. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirects have been executed as consensus to merge is obvious. Atsme✍🏻📧 14:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion NOTE: I've posted notice of this discussion on WikiProject Dogs. Atsme✍🏻📧 19:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC) NOTE 2: I posted notice of this discussion to several involved editors who have edited one or both of the involved articles from September forward. Atsme✍🏻📧 22:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC) No merger: The Irish Bull Terrier is a separate breed and deserves it's own article. The merger banner should be removed immediately. IQ125 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Well IQ125, this isn't an RfC that requires an iVote, it's a discussion. The RSPCA does not recognize the "Irish" variety as a breed, so what RS can you provide to verify it as a breed? Please add at least 2 . Thank you. Atsme✍🏻📧 23:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC) IQ125's claims are directly refuted by the article's own text (or, rather, by the sources it cites). It is not a breed at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Off-topic digression ... SMcCandlish was just deleted my citations from a book and the information that came from the book that was in the article. I would ask him to put the information back with the citations. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia! IQ125 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC) I did nothing of the sort; you're blaming the wrong editor. However, your mass-revert clobbered EVERY recent edit by everyone at that page, and even stripped out the merge tag. Please be more careful. I've undone your mass-revert and re-inserted your source and the details from it. (A {{minnow}} to whoever did delete that; you be more careful, too, please.) Also did some citation cleanup. PS: The source in question doesn't establish this as a breed, either. The fact that the dogs exist and have been used for fighting and ratting isn't disputed by anyone. This just isn't a distinct enough population – especially as mongrelized cross-breed – to warrant a stand-alone article. We do have some articles on cross-breeds, like Labradoodle, but only because they have an overwhelming amount of secondary-source material written about them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC) I was the editor who deleted them. The book is an unreliable source, in limited print by a non-notable author, and is obviously self-published by a marketing firm. Just curious...IQ125, did you author that book or know the person who did? Atsme✍🏻📧 14:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Wait, are we talking about the same source? The TFH Publications I know of is a major publisher of high-quality breeding and pet-keeping works; their reptile and amphibian encyclopedia is arguably the best in the world.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC) No, I was referring to Barker, Shaun (2000). Staffordshire Bull Terriers (English and Irish). Northbrook Publishing. ISBN 978-1857362428. Diff. The edits & reverts became confusing. Atsme✍🏻📧 21:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Ah! Okay. Well, at some point, someone did nuke the ref to the TFH source, and I restored that one (cited twice, including in the lead). I don't care who did it. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Support merge This is some sort of bloodline group or even a hybrid. I see no reliable sources backing up this critter as a legitimate breed. I see similar issues in the horse breed articles where someone has a crossbred or a bloodline group that they want to spin off as a content fork. I say merge this back to the main article; it's worth maybe a paragraph or so there. Maybe. Montanabw(talk) 19:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Support merge The "Irish Bull Terrier" is not recognised by any kennel club organisation. Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard 11:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Merge per nom. Clearly imaginary. ——SerialNumber54129 12:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Merge. While there are sources, what they come down to is that this isn't a breed, or a population, or a variety, or a sub-breed, but is a nomenclatural shell-game being used to evade pit-bull-related laws. This is clearly a good sub-section for the main article, though. It's just not an encyclopedic topic in its own right.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Merge Seems to be a sub breed, not not nearly enough to warrant its own article.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Support merge not a stand alone breed but a line of the Staffie. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC). Support merge Not a recognized breed and we should not support any dog breeder marketing promotionalism. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Support merge - formally as nom. Atsme✍🏻📧 15:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Support merge in principle, in that it seems that this isn't in no way a distinct breed and is unworthy of an article. That said, I'm not so sure about the target. It seems that the folks selling these dogs are claiming that they're an already established branch of the bull and terrier mixes from Ireland that are closely related to the English Staffordshire Bull Terrier (SBT). But it also seems like that's a load of bunk designed to get around the UK's ban on American Pit Bull Terriers (APBT). and that these dogs are actually just a lineage of APBTs that may have some SBT (and/or American Staffordshire Terrier (AST)) lineage as well. (I'm not going to get into the worthlessness and prejudicial nature of breed specific legislation, or how pointless and dumb it is that the UK's version doesn't ban the substantially similar domestic breed.) Indeed, there's a good chance that these are just general mutts crossing multiple breeds of the pit bull type. As such, I think the target is not the best choice, as merging to the SBT article specifically would only reinforce the misidentification of these dogs. There's actually very little of the article worth saving, other than a minor mention that some have taken to using spurious claims to sell dogs of the pit bull type in the UK, which can actually best be covered in the section of the pit bull article on breed specific legislation. So that is where I would merge it, not the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article. oknazevad (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC) No Merger Are two AMAZON books https://www.amazon.co.uk/Staffordshire-Terriers-English-Canine-Library/dp/185736242X/ref=sr_1_1?ie= and https://www.amazon.com/Irish-Staffordshire-Bull-Terrier-Guide/dp/1526907267 other unreliable sources ? Dr Nobody (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Dr Nobody - please post your question at WP:RSN but be prepared to verify that each book was authored by a credible author and not just a breed enthusiast, that the books were not self-published and contain verifiable information based on the credibility of their cited sources. In other words, if they cite WP as a source, that's a big no-no. Also, refer back to my suggestions on your TP. Atsme✍🏻📧 16:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"Irish" Staffordshire section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

 Done. Many thanks, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC).

---

Atsme, I would like to propose new wording for the above section:

In the United Kingdom American Pit Bull Terriers are sometimes advertised as "Irish" Staffordshire Bull Terriers in an attempt to circumvent the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.  The appearance of the Irish Staffordshire, which is not recognised by any kennel club or breed registry, is attributed by the RSPCA to be contributing "to a rise in incidents of dog fighting", the editor of Dogs Today magazine described the breed as "complete fiction".

Sources

Bearing in mind the breed-specific legislation section already includes the first sentence above and talks about the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, I feel this new wording deals with all of the information without placing too much weight on topic with a single source. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC).

The merge was quite an uphill endeavor which is one of the reasons I was specific about not a breed, etc. I have no objection to your version. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

March 2019: Staffie as a pit bull

Hello BlueMoonlet, do you not feel the breed specific legislation section places WP:UNDUE weight on a subject that does not even pertain to this breed in the only jurisdiction mentioned? Also the Irish Staffie section given the sources state it is a euphemism for American Pit Bull Terrier?

Additionally, your edit reverted attempts to correct the spelling, the Use British English template has been on this article since 2013, wholly fair for a British subject.

Further, can I suggest you read MOS:SEEALSO, it advises against the "See also" section repeating links that appear in the article's navigation boxes. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC).

And further still, your contention that the Staffie can be considered a pit bull is clearly far from universal, British law prohibits such dogs and the Staffie is very much legal within Britain. If that reference is to be retained, it should be removed from the lead section as it is not an accurate summary of the breed, but a regional interpretation. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC).

I apologize for not checking my edit more carefully. My only intention was to restore the sourced content to the lead section. The changes to the rest of the article were unintentional.

Your link labeled "British law" is not relevant. That law prohibits dogs "known as the pit bull terrier," so it does not apply to the Staffie but rather to the APBT. To say that the Staffie is part of the pit bull family is not to say that it is dangerous, nor that it is or should be prohibited. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet, the Staffie is only defined as a pit bull within some North American juristictions, nowhere else (the closest I can find in a non-North American publication is the "Bull and Terrier, sometimes referred to as the 'Pit Dog'."). Further, not all of the references you keep including back up your statement, and all of those that do are American.

Looking at the page's history you added this statement on 2 Jun 15, since then multiple editors have tried to remove it and it has only been you that has consistently replaced it (5 Jun 15, 15 Jun 15, 25 Jun 15, 6 Jul 15, 12 Jul 15, 14 Jul 15, 28 Aug 15, 17 Sep 15, 24 Sep 15, 26 Oct 15, 19 Jul 16, 21 May 18, 19 Jul 18, 13 Mar 19, 20 Mar 19 and again today).

This does not belong in the article's lead (MOS:LEAD states "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight"), to do so is WP:UNDUE. Instead it belongs in the article's body, and it is there. Regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC).

Sources

Concur 100%. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I also support removal from the lead per UNDUE; adding that I restored the paragraph (Irish Staffordshire) resulting from the 22 November 2018 merge per consensus as noted in the TP banner. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Cavalryman V31: This topic was discussed at some length in 2015. I hope and trust that all who have registered their opinions so far (that is, Gareth Griffith-Jones and Atsme as well as yourself) will read the discussions at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/Archive 1#Contradiction with Pit Bull Terrier article - Are Staffy's Pits? and Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/Archive 1#Quality of this article, and will then let us know whether they retain the same views, and if so how they would argue against the points that were made in the past.

When people remove consensus information they don't like from an article, without making any coherent argument for doing so, it is perfectly in keeping with WP policy to revert their edits. Of course, we are now having a discussion, so this incidence does not fall under that description. I mention this in order to explain the past actions of mine that you have pointed out.

To summarize the argument, legal definitions are not important here, but rather the heritage of the breed. It seems abundantly clear that SBTs are descended from bull-type dogs that fought in pits. It may well be that SBTs have since been carefully bred to not have the temperament of a fighting dog, but that does not mean that they aren't pit bulls, any more than (hypothetically) a modern Golden Retriever's lack of birding instinct would mean it isn't a retriever. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are more highlights from the previous discussion:

• I really do sympathize with lovers of staffies who do not want their dogs to be associated with the stereotype of a vicious pit bull. However, the remedy should be to dispel the stereotype and to help the public realize that pit bulls are often very good dogs, not to deny (what seems to me) the manifestly true statement that staffies are a form of pit bull.
• The book I'm a Good Dog: Pit Bulls, America's Most Beautiful (and Misunderstood) Dog by Ken Foster contains the following quote: "For some lovers of the American pit bull terrier... 'pit bull' is embraced as shorthand for their breed. However, fans of the American Staffordshire terrier and English Staffordshire terrier are usually quick to tell you that their breeds are not pit bulls. To the general public, all three dogs are perceived as pit bulls, along with variations of the American bulldog, bull terriers, bullmastiffs, and even boxers, as well as mixes of these breeds." This highlights the fact that staffie lovers (such as yourself, I infer) do not like to be associated with the term "pit bull," but that such an association is in fact the basis for how people generally use the word. And if that is not how we determine what a word means, I don't know what is.

Argument by assertion (which is what I've seen so far in this discussion) does not stand up against citations to reliable sources (which I've provided). Furthermore, a single sentence in the lead section is hardly WP:Undue Weight. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it raises justifiable concern when we are faced with relentless insistence to identify the fighting dog ancestry of Staffordshire Bull Terriers with modern day pit bulls, especially in the lead, and that is venturing into WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT territory. The lead does not eliminate the breed's ancestry - it specifically mentions that it is a descendant of 19th century fighting dogs, which is accurate and compliant with DUE. What carries far more WEIGHT is not its ancestry; rather, it's what the breed registries accept as the breed standard per this AKC article (my bold underline for emphasis): "From his brawling past, the muscular but agile Staffordshire Bull Terrier retains the traits of courage and tenacity. Happily, good breeding transformed this former gladiator into a mild, playful companion with a special feel for kids." Pit bull is a type of dog, not a breed and we should not conflate them. Dog Time states "...but he is a breed unto himself with distinct physical characteristics that set him apart, including size and ear shape." This Animal Planet states: ...a dog originally bred for fighting to be so wonderful with kids, but the Staffordshire Bull Terrier really is. RS describe the dog as a terrier, not a pit bull. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet, devoting one of three sentences in the lead to a regionally specific classification is 100% UNDUE. Your new reference (which has not been introduced before now) simply affirms that this is a term used within North America.

No one here is arguning that it should not be included in the article, and it is included, but it should not be included in the lead as does not "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight". Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC).

Atsme: I am shocked that you accuse me of intransigence when we have hardly even begun to exchange our views. What you just wrote is the first move towards engagement between our views that I've seen so far, and it comes paired with a stated assumption of bad faith. Wow.

Cavalryman V31: If you look through the past edits that you meticulously compiled, you'll see that I'm a Good Dog was long a cited source in this article. It does appear to have fallen by the wayside during the periodic edit warring instigated over the years by people who popped up and removed this content for little stated reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This sneaky edit appears to be the culprit.

Your argument that we should discount reliable sources simply because I (an American) am citing mostly sources from America is hard to swallow. A reliable source is a reliable source. The fact that some reliable sources do not mention the identification of SBTs as pit bulls (but don't contradict it) does not invalidate reliable sources. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet, as I have said repeatedly, no-one is saying it should be excluded entirely, but to include it in the lead is UNDUE, it is not a broadly held classification for this breed but a regional grouping. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC).

The current wording mentions pit bulls only in the context of breed-specific legislation, which entirely misses the point. We are talking about what kinds of dogs these are, on a more fundamental level.

Let's review the sources that I originally submitted in 2015 (it appears that one was removed and two others were added since that time without my notice, but as you've pointed out, the additional sources are not very relevant):

• Merriam-Webster defines "pit bull" as "a dog... of any of several breeds... that was originally developed for fighting and is noted for strength, stamina, and tenacity" (wording slightly updated from what was cited in 2015). This clearly applies to SBTs, and this alone should put the onus on you to find sources denying that SBTs are pit bulls, and not just to rely on a perceived paucity or regionality of sources that say they are.
• A court in Colorado defined a "pit bull" as a dog of several breeds including SBTs. Please note that this is a statement about what is and isn't a pit bull, not specifically about whether there should be restrictions on this type of dog
• No less an authoritative (and dog-friendly) source than the ASPCA declares that the "pit bull class of dogs" includes the SBT. Here again, the wording here is clearly a declaration regarding what the ASPCA considers to be a pit bull, even though the purpose is to argue against BSL.
• The book I'm a Good Dog, which meets the WP:RS criteria for published material, declares that pit bulls are generally considered to denote a group of breeds including SBTs.

Not until Atsme posted yesterday have any sources been offered to support the opposing viewpoint. All three of Atsme's sources ([1][2][3]) reference the dog's fighting origin but don't use the term "pit bull." This does not amount to a declaration that SBTs are not pit bulls, just a decision not to mention the fact. Atsme remarks here that "Pit bull is a type of dog, not a breed and we should not conflate them." That is exactly the point I am making!

--BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet, the opposing viewpoint is yours alone at this point. 3 editors have disagreed with your position. I stand by what I said yesterday. You still haven't dropped the stick, so your comment about being shocked over what you referred to as an allegation of intransigence is, in retrospect, no longer an allegation. You have provided supporting evidence by refusing to accept local consensus. If you want wider community input, then by all means, call an RfC and be done with it. I will gladly accept whatever is agreed to by a wider consensus. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, Wikipedia is not a vote. Three people who say I don't like it is no reason for someone with reasonable and well-sourced arguments to stand down. Only very recently have you and your compatriots started to say something more substantial than "I don't like it," and I am attending to that. The aspersions you are casting are inappropriate and against the spirit of Wikipedia. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet, you calling everyone with a different point of view to your own “lovers of staffies who do not want their dogs to be associated with the stereotype of a vicious pit bull” is casting aspersions. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC).

Sources

British Commonwealth definitions

BlueMoonlet, let’s go through this again:

• Within Britain:
  • British law prohibits “any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier”
  • the Oxford dictionary defines the Pit bull (including the synonym of Pit bull terrier) as “a dog of an American variety of bull terrier, noted for its ferocity.”
  • the Cambridge dictionary defines the Pit bull terrier (including the synonym of Pit bull) as “a type of dog that is often considered to be aggressive and is used for fighting other dogs as entertainment.” It further clarified that in American English it is “a type of small dog with a wide chest and short hair, known for its strength and sometimes trained to fight.”
  • again, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is very much legal within Britain
  • ∴ within Britain the classification of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a pit bull is incorrect
• Within Australia:
  • New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria all restrict ownership of the American Pit Bull Terrier (and all include the synonym of Pit Bull Terrier)
  • the Macquarie dictionary defines the Pit bull terrier (including the synonym of “Pit Bull”) as “a stocky strong muscular dog with a short stiff coat usually of fawn and white colouring, originally bred for hunting and dog-fighting and widely regarded as aggressive and dangerous”
  • none of them restrict ownership of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier
  • ∴ within Australia the classification of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a pit bull is incorrect

Again, the classification of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a pit bull is restricted to North America, the article reflects this and the lead very definitely should not. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC).

Cavalryman V31, I don't know what you mean by "again." This is the first time that anybody has made this argument with anything resembling this level of careful sourcing. Up to now, I have seen nothing but your bare assertion that we are dealing with a regional variation, but now I see some evidence. Let me consider and come back to you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, the legal restrictions have always been beside the point, in my opinion. "Pit bull terrier" can be taken as a synonym for the APBT, so of course everyone agrees that bans on such a dog does not apply to SBTs. It's the dictionaries you've just cited that are of interest to me. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet, you are the one who continues to use the Colorado legal definition as an example. Here’s another for you, the Collins COBUILD dictionary gives a definition for pit bull as “A pit bull terrier or a pit bull is a very fierce kind of dog. Some people train pit bull terriers to fight other dogs. It is illegal to own one in the UK.” Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC).

And another from the Chambers dictionary, “pit bull terrier noun a large breed of bull terrier, originally developed for dogfighting. Often shortened to pit bull.” Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC).

Main image

I think a more illustrative main image is needed. This current image (File:Staffordshire Bull Terrier "Chaman".jpg) is not very illustrative, the dog has his back to the camera. I recommend this ones below (or similars). Adventurous36 (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

No, Adventurous36, you are wrong. The correct image in the info' box must be a four-legged sideways stance. Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Adventurous36, I agree with Gareth Griffith-Jones, the current image is the best of those available. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC).

Oppose suggested changes. I will try to get a good profile shot of a male and female (representative of the breed standard) at the next AKC show I'm able to attend. If I can't get it done, I'll ask around to see who can oblige. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I found the following images on Pixabay, all with a CC0 license:

• 
• 
• 
• 

I really like the white stacked dog (side profile) for the infobox - maybe with the 3/4 pose below the infobox. The other pictures, especially the puppy, one of the blacks from either gallery, and the brindle in Adventurous36 gallery would add a nice touch as a right side lineup or as a gallery in the article. AKC Breed Standard says Red, fawn, white, black or blue,or any of these colors with white. Any shade of brindle or any shade of brindle with white. Black-and-tan or liver color to be disqualified. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Good choice! The two images below are the best in my opinion. Thank you. Adventurous36 (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• 
• 

Not to be confused with...

I think the Template message below needs a complement Adventurous36 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Bull Terrier.

My suggestion:

Not to be confused with Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier.

Adventurous36 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier

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

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

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

Sources

Potential GA

Notice to the most recent article watchers - Dwanyewest, Calvaryman, GG-J - just letting you know that I'll be copy editing, and making some updates/additions/clarifications to the article today so don't be concerned about the activity. I will add an "in use" template on the page, and ask that while the template is up, please wait until I've removed it before you make any edits, and if you have any concerns, let's please discuss it here on the TP. I would like to prime this article as a potential GA and possibly DYK so whoever wants to get involved in either or both of the processes let me know. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

PS: I just tweaked the lead, and will work on the History section later, so if after you proof-read it, and find any discrepencies, etc., please discuss it here. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Pit bull?

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

That might simply be a matter of personal phrasing used by the no-name author. You would be unwise to state that "In the United States they are classified as pit bull types" based on that one web-site reference. Does any legislation in the US actually classify the staffie as a pitbull? If not, the term should be removed from the article. Good Article status warrants good quality referencing. William Harris • (talk) • 09:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to our attention, William Harris. I have adjusted the wording to more accurately reflect the source. The ASPCA is a highly reputable source, and in this particular article, they explain why they believe breed-specific legislation does more harm than good. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

From the reading I did during the above pit bull discussion, it appeared that only some jurisdictions in the US and Canada place restrictions on the Staffie, can I suggest we change the current wording from “around the world” to “North American” just list the two countries? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC).

Yes, Cavalryman V31. Exactly my thoughts. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It just needs to be cited to a RS. What did you have in mind? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Additionally, second paragraph last sentence. The AKC view on breed specific legislation does not warrant a place in the lede because it is off-topic - is there nothing more we can say about the Staffie here? William Harristalk 08:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Rather than provide specifics, the lead is summarized and I included the country names rather than saying "world-wide". I also moved the last sentence to the relevant section. Thanks for pointing that out. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

With the exception of the KC, I question putting any other Kennel Club recognition into the lead, if the AKC why not the CKC, the ANKC, the NZKC etc? I think the last sentence should be dropped altogether. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC).

If you have the sources that have published similar information to what KC & AKC have published we can certainly add them in the Recognition section. The only reason AKC is in the lead is to distinguish the Staffordshire as a separate breed from the American Staffordshire Terrier which has its own article, so if there exists a Canadian Staffie, an Australian & New Zealand Staffie that need to be distinguished from Staffordshire Bull Terriers, then yes, we need to include them in the lead. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:53, July 9, 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, I support the inclusion of the AKC recognition within the article (I added it) just not the lead, above the lead is already the distinguish template. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC).

Cavalryman, WP:DONTLIKEIT is not a convincing reason to remove material from the lead. It has been there for nearly a month now, and the only thing that has changed is the article is now a GAC. I may be wrong, but I doubt that an RfC will return the results you want, but if you are that determined to have it removed from the lead, I can withdraw this GAC if your intention is to call an RfC to resolve the issue once and for all. Is that what you want? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Whoa, as per your request I have taken a back seat and been watching most supportively the excellent work you have been doing, I am now giving you my opinion on a single sentence, if you WP:DONTLIKEIT so be it but I see no reason for AKC recognition to be in the lead. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC).

@Atsme: You are acting like you own the article. You do not. See WP:OWNERSHIP. Just because something has been on an article for "over a month", doesn't mean that it should "remain thataway forever". For example, I never looked at the BSL section of the Staffie article until today, so just because no one else saw the problems with it that I saw today, doesn't mean I need to "discuss" my changes with you, or anyone, before making my changes. See WP:BOLD. Nomopbs (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: You have missed the most obvious source of BSL specifically listing Staffordshire Bull Terriers, while at the same time misunderstanding the citation you added to the article. Go to Breed-specific legislation and you will find "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" mentioned for the 14 countries Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Romania, Singapore, Spain and the United States... plus 12 of the United States of Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and New York. If you go to the new citation you added [4] you will find not only links to the seven countries you think are the only ones, while missing the obvious link titled "Please see a full list of these countries" which links to the "mother lode" list [5] which lists BSL in 52 countries. Now if that ain't "worldwide", I don't know what is. — Nomopbs (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I did miss it, Nomopbs - and forgot to sign my last comment. Too many interruptions while I was trying to focus on this review. Thanks for correcting. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding, Nomopbs - I don't agree with your removal of large blocks of important encyclopedic information regarding the positions of various notable organizations. Please discuss on the TP before any further BRD while this GA review is in process. Thank you. 21:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

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

@Atsme: WTF!?!? You didn't even read it! Try again! — Nomopbs (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I did read it, and a "no frills" BSL is not compliant with NPOV. The views of notable organizations belong in the article, and it's important for our readers to know why certain dogs were included on that list. There is opposition to such legislation, and we include it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, here's my points:

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

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

Use this version instead:

Though a number of federal and municipal governments around the world[18] have placed restrictions on the ownership of the pit bull class of dogs and typically lists several breeds including the Staffordshire Bull Terrier,[19] Staffies are excluded from the BSL breed lists in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.[5]

In 2018 PETA lobbied the British Parliament to have the Staffordshire Bull Terrier included in the list of dog breeds prohibited by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but the idea was rejected by Parliament. The RSPCA, the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust, Blue Cross and the Battersea Dogs & Cats Home all objected to the proposed ban.[20]

Nomopbs (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Sources

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 01:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Far too long since I reviewed one of your articles! I'll have a look soon, and though I find them very interesting, I'm not exactly a dog expert, so William Harris is free to chime in here if he has anything to add (I saw he already commented on the talk page). Some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• I see some citations are used in the intro that art not used in the article body; the intro should not have unique info, and therefore no unique citations, as it is only supposed to summarise the article body. Therefore, the intro doesn't need citations for non-controversial info either. Y
• There are a few duplinks in the article body, they can be highlighted with this script (easy to install):[6] Y
• "the dogs weigh 29 to 37 pounds (13 to 17 kg) and the bitches" Is it common terminology to only call the males "dogs"?Y
• WP:Galleries without context are generally discouraged, so I'd suggest removing it, and if any of the images are important, move them to where they would make sense in the article. Y

Still seeing a gallery? FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I added context via gallery title, and hidden captions naming colors, & showing cropped vs uncropped ears Y

Interesting, never seen such hidden captions before. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• The infobox image has three different source links, only the first appears to be correct.Y

Still seeing multiple links to different photos under source? FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Y

Removed wikilinks in info box (if that's what you meant)

I meant on the file page, I removed them myself with this edit[7], so feel free to add the wikilinks you removed back. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know you were an (A) on Commons. Kewl. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Some of the sections, especially the first ones, seem rather short, is there no more info to add there?Y
• The sourcing of this[8] image seems rather dubious. Y
• Likewise with this[9] one, how has it been established that the author is "unknown"? Y
• "Common nicknames Stafford & Staffie" I wonder if a comma would be better than "&" for clarity. Especially since one other breed mentioned even has the word "and" in its name.Y
• What sets this breed apart from other similar breeds? Y See section Popularity (again)19:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• "Life span Over 12 years" This should also be stated under health, with source.Y
• Any reason why you switch from the full name to the nickname halfway down the article? You even switch between adjacent sentences. Would probably be best to be consistent. Y - see reason below
• You also seem to switch randomly between KC and Kennel Club. Y - see reason below
• You use both ise and ize endings; since this is a UK related article, best to stick with ise.Y
• I think it would be better if the history section was chronological; the Early protection covers a time before that covered in Recognition, so should logically come first. Y

Arranged chronologically in subsections. 12:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• "subject of Sir Percy FitzPatrick’s book Jock of the Bushveld." Could give date for the book.Y
• "not to be confused with the American Staffordshire Terrier which is a distinctly separate breed." Not really stated outside the intro, and could use some elaboration,. What is the relation between the two, and why the same name? Y
• "In the US, the ASPCA" What is that? Anything to link? Could also be spelled out, like you do with most other organisations. Y
• You also use the abbreviation AKC before spelling it out. ?? See lede where it's spelled out.

Personally, I also spell out terms at first mention outside the intro, but I'm not sure what the guidelines say, so no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• "In 2018 PETA lobbied the British Parliament to have the Staffordshire Bull Terrier added to the list" Why? I thought they were for animal rights? Y
• "James Hinks of Birmingham, England was founder of the Bull Terrier." Why is this info about a different breed relevant in the intro here? Also, he is not linked outside the intro. Y check it now...I've clarified the Hinks connection whereas before, it was a dubious disconnect. I should have been more attentive - apologies.
• "a breed that "emerged as one of the most successful and enduring." According to who? Also the quote could maybe be paraphrased or repeated in the article body, or moved there. Y
• "It wasn't until", "but it wasn't". Contractions are discouraged (done at least three times here).Y

Discussion

Hey, there FM!! Yes, it has been a while. I was quite pleased to see that you took the review. Quick answer to your dog—-bitch question. It's standard terminology used by breeders and at dog shows. After the dog & bitch classes have been judged, the winners of each division go back in for Winners Dog and Winners Bitch. Oxford defines "dog" as "The male of an animal of the dog family, or of some other mammals such as the otter." I'll get to work on the other issues. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• I removed the citations that weren't needed in the lead, but 2 still remain because they are likely to be challenged. Fn#1 is cited to the same source that is used in the body text, but Fn#3 is from a single source cited only to the lead. It's contains a quote about breed specific legislation that aren't in the sources cited in the body text.
• The images are properly licensed. They are old images (84 yrs) so they're in the public domain. It's highly probable that the photog has long since died.
• Yes, they are short so I combined 2 of them, which tightens things up a little. Regarding both temperament and health, we're limited to a generalization of what's expected in that breed. Anything beyond that speaks to individualism.
• Made a few modifications per William's suggestions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for being sidetracked, FunkMonk. The article was stable when I made the GAC nom, and I've never had anything like this crop up during a GA review. I responded to what I believed to be valid suggestions from the other 3 editors, and hope they will allow you to continue the review as an uninvolved reviewer making a determination. I invite you to look at their suggestions, and make your own determination as if they were participants in the review. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems like that discussion has gone off the rails, I'll leave the issue for last, after I've tried to get an overview of the situation. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I remain optimistic that you will be able to continue the review uninterrupted. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have stalled as soon as I commented there, so I guess so, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

In your list of issues above, would you be so kind as to strike the ones that were completed to your satisfaction?

Unless I add a further comment below a point, I'm satisfied with the points you've ticked and answered (striking out is rather uncommon, I see it as superfluous). FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Still seeing multiple links to different photos under source? - I've removed the dupe wikilinks in the image box.
2. Re:links in lede - had to restore the citations as the material was challenged

I've commented on the talk page, the editor there does not seem to be familiar with GA/FAC. In any case, it is not a big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Round 3 - reasons

1. Re:Gallery - added context via gallery title, and hidden captions naming colors, & showing cropped vs uncropped ears
2. Re:material cited in lede not seen in body - fixed, may not be verbatim
3. What sets this breed apart from other similar breeds? - see Popularity section

I rather mean physically; it would appear to me that much of the description would also apply to many similar dogs? So what makes it physically distinct from them? FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Any reason why you switch from the full name to the nickname - fixed; use full name when specific to breed registry, club names, and referencing titles, and Staffie when generically describing the dog.
2. Re: The Kennel Club vs KC - fixed

• Final round

1. Ok, I've clarified the James Hinks connection. Pretty sure I fixed all the izes to ises. Re-ordered the sections for fluidity, expanded/clarified where I could without getting too FA-like vs GA-like. As for acronyms vs spelling out, I created sub-sections for KC & AKC in the Recognition section, and added a few more breed associations in the lead of the Recognition section. I've added a Y in your list above along with a few comments. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking good, you just added one more ize ending in a section header though, " Unrecognized breed"! I wonder if there is anything on physical differences from other breeds? Will get back to the nickname issue later. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

FM, I never would have recognized it if you had not recognised it. 😂 Re: your question: physical differences from other breeds? Not quite sure what you're reaching for? Nickname issue...I realise your goal is consistency but consider the following: my useage of the nickname vs the formal full name is somewhat equivalent to using uppercase President vs lower case president. I used Staffordshire Bull Terrier when the formal name was appropriate, and Staffie when appropriate to be informal. However, not unlike my use of ize vs ise, there may have been a little slippage which is an early sign of being kennel blind; i.e., my splay-footed, bug-eyed, wire haired dog with the overbite is tomorrow's Westminster Best In Show. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

On the physical differences; what sets this one apart from, say, an American Pit Bull Terrier or an American Staffordshire Terrier? And I'm still unsure why the American Staffordshire has the similar name? As for the talk page discussion, I'll let it play out and read through it so that I can better understand what's going on. Strange how the article is suddenly attracting so many editors... Haven't seen anything like it since I peer reviewed Balfour Declaration, which one might think is a much more contentious article... FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Breeders develop new breeds via outcrosses and line breeding, etc. to improve upon or breed out certain inheritable traits/genetic qualities. The American Staffordshire Terrier is the result of breeders in the US wanting a bigger, heavier dog than the Staffie, so they outcrossed Staffies to larger, big boned dogs (molosser) to develop a new standard and purpose. AST's are heavier and taller than the English Staffies (AST males are 18 to 19 inches at the shoulder vs SBT at 14 to 16 inches). It probably had something to do with gaining advantage in pit fighting back in the day. The appearances of the Staffie vs American Staffie would probably be along the same lines as a Giant Schnauzer vs a Schnauzer vs a Miniature Schnauzer but more subtle. Breed standards would also provide some of the differences. Example, AKC allows both cropped or uncropped ears on AST whereas Staffies must be uncropped. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I think it warrants a mention then that the American breed is (partially?) descended from the British one, now it reads like they have nothing in common but the name. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

We have a not to be confused with at the top of the page. I recently removed mention of that breed in the lede because the American Staffordshire Terrier is arguably the same as the American Pit Bull Terrier with the exception that the APBT is UKC registered and not recognized by AKC, and the AST is recognized by AKC but not UKC. AKC says of the AST: "Whatever the AmStaff’s true genetic composition might be, we are certain that working-class Brits with an interest in blood sports combined the stocky build and punishing jaws of old-style Bulldogs with the innate courage and “gameness” of terriers to create bull-type terrier breeds." AKC eventually recognized AST and SBT as two separate breeds. According to Britannica: "Authorities differ on whether the American Staffordshire Terrier and the pit bull are the same breed. The AKC and the Continental Kennel Club separate them, whereas the United Kennel Club combines both within the American Pit Bull Terrier breed." Staffordshire Bull Terriers were originally developed in England and have maintained their purebred status there and in the US. The ancestral connection (especially in dog years) is too far back and mention of it would only cause confusion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, this seems like pretty significant info. To me, and probably many other unfamiliar readers, it actually creates far more confusion that the issue of two different breeds with the same name is not addressed. The first thing that comes to mind is "what's the connection", and looking throughout the article to find the answer. If there is a controversy of whether the two are the same or not, that should definitely be mentioned (just like possible synonymies between animal taxa are always discussed in their articles). FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

See this article for appearances. In looking at the WP article, American Staffordshire Terrier, (which needs updating/fact checking), the commonality is the Bulldog x Terrier ancestry. Trying to connect the two is a bit complicated because timelines vary, much of the information is based on anecdotal reports dating back to the 1880s+/-, and it is difficult to find corroborating accounts. There's also this, but not everything falls quietly into place. Tomorrow's another day. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The segues weren't easy but I somehow managed to keep the flow. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Much clearer for me with the added context, thanks. Now, on to the talk page discussion... FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the responses to the points I've made, but since there is currently a lot of editing and discussion going on, I'll wait until it settles, so we can reach a stable version. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk, the last standing challenge on the article TP is about the omission of rat-baiting from the history. I may not be holding my mouth right when I type in the words for a Google or Bing search but I've been unable to find any RS that state Staffordshire Bull Terriers were used for rat-baiting. In fact, the closest I came to anything other than bear & bull baiting was a recent article about an isolated incident of illegal badger hunting. I've put in a request for 2 sources that support rat-baiting with Staffordshire Bull Terriers, so I guess now we wait. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(watching) @Atsme: I'm not sure it's precisely the same thing, but it UK the word more commonly used is (was, I gues) ratting; see [10] for various sources.

Great article though . Our Stella would be proud of you. Well, she'd doubtless prefer sausages, but that's the way of things  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, SN - so happy to see you here!! You are among my favorite editors when it comes to collaboration, yet we've had too few engagements in that regard. Thank you for pointing to the books, and bringing the term to my attention. Rat-baiting was originally in the lede, then I changed it to "vermin control", and recently it went back to rat-baiting because vermin-control was challenged, then replaced with bull-baiting which appeared to be more prominent. Perhaps it should have said "vermin destruction" per the following source. I added ratting back to the lead, and a note about badger-baiting as a clandestine blood sport in the subsection Early protection. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: Thanks very much, you're very kind. I'm sorry if I was jumping into to controversy with my suggestion: I see on the talk page that you've been mildly trolled over it for a while now. Apologies, but I stopped reading that TLDR sometime ago...! ——SerialNumber54129 11:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk, aside from the typical minor IP/newbie drive-by, all is quiet on the western front. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Great, I'll have a look at the latest round of comments on the talk page soon, then I'll see if I can suggest how to progress, if anything is even needed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk - just an FYI, added rat-baiting based on suggestion by Serial Number 54129 - see my comment above. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Ok, per Cavalryman V31's points on the talk page, I do agree that a lot of space is devoted to Hinks, without it being clear what he has to do with this particular breed. I do think Hinks warrants a mention in the article, though, since the sources about this breed do seem to cover him. I don't think he warrants an entire subheader at least, and the text about him could be cut down (and cut parts moved to articles about the relevant breeds). On a similar note, "of Birmingham, England" is irrelevant to the intro, as it has nothing to do with the subject of this article (more relevant details about this breed are not mentioned, while that is).
• The line "first arrived in North America in the mid to late 1800s" does not match the mid 1880s date stated in the intro.
• Cavalryman's issue that the line "The Staffie's early origins as a fighting dog made it difficult to gain recognition as a breed for entry in the KC's breed registry" is unsupported by the refs seems to be unfounded, as the first ref says "Because of its early association with fighting it was, for some time, difficult to get recognition for the breed and it was not until the 1930's that the KC recognised the breed", and the second says "Although offshoots of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier were given recognition by the English Kennel Club as early as the late 1800’s, it was 1935 before this breed received the same honor, primarily due to it’s fighting history.".
• Ratting should be mentioned in the article body with source, not just the intro. Otherwise the intro seems to reflect the article body, but could perhaps also include a bit on its temperament and health, since the intro is supposed to summarise all important aspects of the article.
• Still one "ize" left, "AKC would not recognize".
• I am unsure what Nomopbs's remaining points are, but they are welcome to list them here for evaluation. But intros do not need citations for uncontroversial info, as they are only supposed to summarise the article body, where the citations are located.
  • @FunkMonk: I'm putting my response on the Staffie Talk page. [11] — Nomopbs (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd like to settle all grievances in an orderly fashion on the talk page, point by point, before I close the nomination, so it doesn't disintegrate into an edit war afterwards. Hopefully everyone will be satisfied. This shouldn't be harder to solve than the Balfour Declaration article was. FunkMonk (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Just continue whatever you're doing without me. — Nomopbs (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)