Small Text
One should not deny or try to ignore or reject bull and terrier crosses whom are hunting dogs. Just about every working/hunting terrier you see today has bull-dog blood in them and the history and use of bull and terriers as hunting dogs should stop getting deleted from this article in my opinion. I am aware that this fact contradicts the direction and limited tone on this article as it is today, but maybe we can correct the tone so that it includes hunting bull and terriers too, rather than just trying to delete the fact that most hunting terriers are also bull and terrier crosses. Maybe we can work together to make a very good article.
If we cannot work together, or if some people just don't want to include the hunting bull and terrier crosses, then I will leave this article alone. Working terriers ( talk) 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The description of the Bull Terrier states that they are all "pure white" yet the page links to a photo of what is presumably a Bull Terrier and is not, in fact, white. Something's screwy here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.17.31 ( talk) 04:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The picture in the description is a rather odd choice. There are several dogs in the picture, and I cannot tell which one is supposed to be a Bull and Terrier. Is there not a single picture of this breed, or painting containing a single dog?
The Pit Bull(APBT) was the progenitor of the Amstaff. The Bull and Terrier isn't the direct ancestor of the amstaff. 191.35.65.100 ( talk) 02:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The article has two citations using the website bulldoginformation.com. Please note that this is a self published monetized website by a single person who states no expertise in the area beyond (a) being a webmaster and (b) having "a passion for bulldogs". [1] It is probably not a reliable source per Wikipedia Verifiability and RS guidelines. Nomopbs ( talk) 14:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Please see discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Sources for the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman ( talk) 02:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Atsme, I have asked you four times now, please can you confirm exactly what Dieter Fleig says and provide page numbers? Cavalryman ( talk) 04:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Over at "
fringe theories", I said that understanding the distinction between the concept of a dog type and a dog breed is crucial to resolving the debate over whether "Bull and Terrier" was a previous name for the
Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
Cavalryman responded the sources detailed above all say it was a breed. Yes there is likely less deviation of appearance seen within breeds in the western world today than yesteryear, but that does not make them any less of a breed (the advent of
breed standards has encouraged greater uniformity). Breeds seen in the developing world typically show greater variation in appearance as function (as opposed to form) is typically (but not always) what is sought from a mating.
I see a problem with the term "breed" having two meanings. The more general, looser meaning that Cavalryman is using and the more specific meaning Atsme favors here, i.e. short for " standard breed". The article says "no single, scientifically accepted definition of the term exists. It was shown by set-theoretic means that for the term breed an infinite number of different definitions, which more or less meet the common requirements found in literature, can be given. A breed is therefore not an objective or biologically verifiable classification but is instead a term of art amongst groups of breeders who share a consensus around what qualities make some members of a given species members of a nameable subset." The Staffordshire Bull Terrier lede says its "a shorthaired, purebred dog breed". I take that to mean it complies with a breed standard.
I'm not clear on what the distinction is between dog types and the looser meanings of "breed". Seems like a grey matter, with a spectrum ranging from very broad types bred for certain characteristics (big dog, small dog; long-legged dog, short-legged dog) and the extreme purebred dogs (big but with short legs and a dozen other specific qualities). I suppose the ideal purebred dog would be a clone – that would 100% replicate the standard, LOL!
Was there once a Bull and Terrier breed standard, which at some point the organization responsible for the standard decided to rename to Staffordshire Bull Terrier? If such a thing happened, surely someone can find a news report announcing this renaming, or a press release at the least? I don't think there ever was such an official renaming.
The Ngram shows that the name "bull and terrier" goes back to circa 1820, while "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" only appeared after 1930. Sources between 1800–1875 use the term in a more general sense, and don't call this a purebred, rather it's "the mixture of the bull and terrier". The earliest mention of Staffordshire I found is in this 1908 book: The term 'Staffordshire bull terrier' is frequently used by 'doggy' men, owing, it is believed, to the notion that the bull terrier first of all sprang into existence in that district..." – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The term "bull and terrier" pre-dates the establishment of the first formal dog-breeder association (the Kennel Club, in the UK). Some sources call this a breed, but they are using that word in the broadest possible sense, and that is not the sense that Wikipedia uses. WP distinguishes between breeds, landraces, cross-breeds, hybrids, feral mongrel populations, wild subspecies, etc., but there are dog books that call them all "breeds" (mainly as an excuse to claim to be the most "complete" dog breed encyclopedia as of the time of publication).
Those kinds of books, BTW, are tertiary sources, not secondary, anyway, so they do not help establish notability, and should be used with caution. Breeder organisation materials are primary. Breed profiles written by breeders and published in magazines and sites (Dog Fancy, etc.) are primary – they lack independence from the subject – even if some other material in the publications is secondary. (And many such articles are just really bad, full of historical inaccuracies, aggrandizing claims, etc.)
I don't know why this particular term has been argued about for so long, but we seem to have a lot of sourcing that indicates that the term "bull and terrier" was used for cross-bred fighting dogs of a particular era and region, which were ancestral to several standardised modern breeds, and that the term was most especially used for the variety that eventually became standardised as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. This doesn't seem difficult to write about, nor does it sound like we need a stand-alone article on it, but if we're going to have one it's not hard to write it sensibly, and to refer to it sensibly in other articles like Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
I'm detecting a whiff of the "If evolution is real, why do monkeys still exist?" fallacy at play in this multi-thread debate. The fact (as best we can determine it) that bull-and-terrier dogs of a certain consistency became standardised as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, when long-term bred with each other for fixed traits instead of being further cross-bred, has no bearing on the question of whether other bull-and-terrier bloodlines exist[ed] and gave rise, in whole or in part, to other breeds.
Back to the internal question of whether we need a separate article about bull-and-terrier dogs: I'll repeat what I said at the other page: we have that article because someone a long time ago got it into their head that pretty much every term ever found in a dog book should have a WP article about it, and we've been playing cleanup for a long time, merging away redundant and non-notable pages. To me, it would make more sense to have an article on bully-type dogs, and another on terrier-type dogs, and then simply refer as needed to
cross-breeding between them without having an an article devoted to cross-breeding between them, which isn't magically more special than cross-breeding between other types of dogs.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
17:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Just a few of the most glaring issues that leap out from the recent rewrite:
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).This is neither attributed nor cited so is a flagrant copyvio of Parker et a paper.
I have added {{ POV}} to the article as per the linked discussion this article has clearly been rewritten with a certain agenda in mind. Before tagging the article with further issues tags I would like to give the page author a chance to rectify these most glaring issues. Cavalryman ( talk) 03:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC).
According to the article, "The bull and terrier was never a bona fide breed" It's also listed as extinct, with the reason being that it's not recognised by breeders and kennel clubs.
Clearly, a bulldog and a terrier, despite each being pedigreed, can mate and have puppies (assuming they aren't neutered/same-sex/too old/deformed/some other reason they can't besides speciation), to this very day.
So, if that could always happen and it can happen now, and if they aren't recognised by breeders and kennel clubs as a distinct breed, but also never were recognised by breeders and kennel clubs as a distinct breed, then how can they be "extinct"?
It's sort of like saying griffons and elves are extinct, since griffons and elves were never not-extinct. It's absurd to say. But it's also a bit like saying mules are extinct because they aren't a genuine equine species.
At the very least, if this is some other meaning of "extinct" with which this author is unfamiliar, the link in the term should not go back to the standard definition. 2601:1C2:5000:1472:901E:6603:60F:DC1D ( talk) 19:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Small Text
One should not deny or try to ignore or reject bull and terrier crosses whom are hunting dogs. Just about every working/hunting terrier you see today has bull-dog blood in them and the history and use of bull and terriers as hunting dogs should stop getting deleted from this article in my opinion. I am aware that this fact contradicts the direction and limited tone on this article as it is today, but maybe we can correct the tone so that it includes hunting bull and terriers too, rather than just trying to delete the fact that most hunting terriers are also bull and terrier crosses. Maybe we can work together to make a very good article.
If we cannot work together, or if some people just don't want to include the hunting bull and terrier crosses, then I will leave this article alone. Working terriers ( talk) 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The description of the Bull Terrier states that they are all "pure white" yet the page links to a photo of what is presumably a Bull Terrier and is not, in fact, white. Something's screwy here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.17.31 ( talk) 04:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The picture in the description is a rather odd choice. There are several dogs in the picture, and I cannot tell which one is supposed to be a Bull and Terrier. Is there not a single picture of this breed, or painting containing a single dog?
The Pit Bull(APBT) was the progenitor of the Amstaff. The Bull and Terrier isn't the direct ancestor of the amstaff. 191.35.65.100 ( talk) 02:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The article has two citations using the website bulldoginformation.com. Please note that this is a self published monetized website by a single person who states no expertise in the area beyond (a) being a webmaster and (b) having "a passion for bulldogs". [1] It is probably not a reliable source per Wikipedia Verifiability and RS guidelines. Nomopbs ( talk) 14:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Please see discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Sources for the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman ( talk) 02:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Atsme, I have asked you four times now, please can you confirm exactly what Dieter Fleig says and provide page numbers? Cavalryman ( talk) 04:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Over at "
fringe theories", I said that understanding the distinction between the concept of a dog type and a dog breed is crucial to resolving the debate over whether "Bull and Terrier" was a previous name for the
Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
Cavalryman responded the sources detailed above all say it was a breed. Yes there is likely less deviation of appearance seen within breeds in the western world today than yesteryear, but that does not make them any less of a breed (the advent of
breed standards has encouraged greater uniformity). Breeds seen in the developing world typically show greater variation in appearance as function (as opposed to form) is typically (but not always) what is sought from a mating.
I see a problem with the term "breed" having two meanings. The more general, looser meaning that Cavalryman is using and the more specific meaning Atsme favors here, i.e. short for " standard breed". The article says "no single, scientifically accepted definition of the term exists. It was shown by set-theoretic means that for the term breed an infinite number of different definitions, which more or less meet the common requirements found in literature, can be given. A breed is therefore not an objective or biologically verifiable classification but is instead a term of art amongst groups of breeders who share a consensus around what qualities make some members of a given species members of a nameable subset." The Staffordshire Bull Terrier lede says its "a shorthaired, purebred dog breed". I take that to mean it complies with a breed standard.
I'm not clear on what the distinction is between dog types and the looser meanings of "breed". Seems like a grey matter, with a spectrum ranging from very broad types bred for certain characteristics (big dog, small dog; long-legged dog, short-legged dog) and the extreme purebred dogs (big but with short legs and a dozen other specific qualities). I suppose the ideal purebred dog would be a clone – that would 100% replicate the standard, LOL!
Was there once a Bull and Terrier breed standard, which at some point the organization responsible for the standard decided to rename to Staffordshire Bull Terrier? If such a thing happened, surely someone can find a news report announcing this renaming, or a press release at the least? I don't think there ever was such an official renaming.
The Ngram shows that the name "bull and terrier" goes back to circa 1820, while "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" only appeared after 1930. Sources between 1800–1875 use the term in a more general sense, and don't call this a purebred, rather it's "the mixture of the bull and terrier". The earliest mention of Staffordshire I found is in this 1908 book: The term 'Staffordshire bull terrier' is frequently used by 'doggy' men, owing, it is believed, to the notion that the bull terrier first of all sprang into existence in that district..." – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The term "bull and terrier" pre-dates the establishment of the first formal dog-breeder association (the Kennel Club, in the UK). Some sources call this a breed, but they are using that word in the broadest possible sense, and that is not the sense that Wikipedia uses. WP distinguishes between breeds, landraces, cross-breeds, hybrids, feral mongrel populations, wild subspecies, etc., but there are dog books that call them all "breeds" (mainly as an excuse to claim to be the most "complete" dog breed encyclopedia as of the time of publication).
Those kinds of books, BTW, are tertiary sources, not secondary, anyway, so they do not help establish notability, and should be used with caution. Breeder organisation materials are primary. Breed profiles written by breeders and published in magazines and sites (Dog Fancy, etc.) are primary – they lack independence from the subject – even if some other material in the publications is secondary. (And many such articles are just really bad, full of historical inaccuracies, aggrandizing claims, etc.)
I don't know why this particular term has been argued about for so long, but we seem to have a lot of sourcing that indicates that the term "bull and terrier" was used for cross-bred fighting dogs of a particular era and region, which were ancestral to several standardised modern breeds, and that the term was most especially used for the variety that eventually became standardised as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. This doesn't seem difficult to write about, nor does it sound like we need a stand-alone article on it, but if we're going to have one it's not hard to write it sensibly, and to refer to it sensibly in other articles like Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
I'm detecting a whiff of the "If evolution is real, why do monkeys still exist?" fallacy at play in this multi-thread debate. The fact (as best we can determine it) that bull-and-terrier dogs of a certain consistency became standardised as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, when long-term bred with each other for fixed traits instead of being further cross-bred, has no bearing on the question of whether other bull-and-terrier bloodlines exist[ed] and gave rise, in whole or in part, to other breeds.
Back to the internal question of whether we need a separate article about bull-and-terrier dogs: I'll repeat what I said at the other page: we have that article because someone a long time ago got it into their head that pretty much every term ever found in a dog book should have a WP article about it, and we've been playing cleanup for a long time, merging away redundant and non-notable pages. To me, it would make more sense to have an article on bully-type dogs, and another on terrier-type dogs, and then simply refer as needed to
cross-breeding between them without having an an article devoted to cross-breeding between them, which isn't magically more special than cross-breeding between other types of dogs.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
17:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Just a few of the most glaring issues that leap out from the recent rewrite:
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).This is neither attributed nor cited so is a flagrant copyvio of Parker et a paper.
I have added {{ POV}} to the article as per the linked discussion this article has clearly been rewritten with a certain agenda in mind. Before tagging the article with further issues tags I would like to give the page author a chance to rectify these most glaring issues. Cavalryman ( talk) 03:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC).
According to the article, "The bull and terrier was never a bona fide breed" It's also listed as extinct, with the reason being that it's not recognised by breeders and kennel clubs.
Clearly, a bulldog and a terrier, despite each being pedigreed, can mate and have puppies (assuming they aren't neutered/same-sex/too old/deformed/some other reason they can't besides speciation), to this very day.
So, if that could always happen and it can happen now, and if they aren't recognised by breeders and kennel clubs as a distinct breed, but also never were recognised by breeders and kennel clubs as a distinct breed, then how can they be "extinct"?
It's sort of like saying griffons and elves are extinct, since griffons and elves were never not-extinct. It's absurd to say. But it's also a bit like saying mules are extinct because they aren't a genuine equine species.
At the very least, if this is some other meaning of "extinct" with which this author is unfamiliar, the link in the term should not go back to the standard definition. 2601:1C2:5000:1472:901E:6603:60F:DC1D ( talk) 19:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)