Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/Archive 1

message: Hi there, I'm going to be adding a few new articles on the development and early history of the SBT. These articles will solely focus on the Uk where the breed originates. Any objections if I make a few alterations to the introduction of this article?? Seems rather incomplete and inaccurate at this stage. Cheers.
:Edit away. But is there any reason that there need to be "a few new articles"? I'm having trouble picturing anything other than additions to this same article in the History section--let alone more than one other article--even if it gets quite long. That would be fine--lots of long articles in Wikipedia.  Elf | Talk 21:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: never heard of jimmy Hinks in relation to the SBT

message: This article is not written in the neutral point of view. Especally this passage-
"But visit that family at home and you’re likely to be met by a boisterous though very affectionate human-orientated dog who is happy to see you, loves nothing more than playing with the kids and will roll over if given the slightest opportunity for a tummy rub."
Come now, whoever wrote this was an strong dog lover but it shouldnt be on wikipedia. 
Jesus On Wheels 17:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral 

message: Firstly if I'm messing this talk page up, sorry; I haven't posted on many talk pages in my time. Anyway I noticed this at the bottom of Breed Specific Legislation:
"By the way if anyone thinks that the staffordshire bull terrier is bred to be a killer, then you are wrong!! there are plenty of people that own staffies and they know as well as i do that they are a family dog and that they love children and have a very good nature! so there!!!"
I presume it should be removed, but I thought I'd post here first just in case. Get back to me someone with more experience/judgement please? Sakrotac 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Rant at the bottom of the page 

message: i notice this article states 'They will not start fights with other dogs...' is this true? i know for a fact that this is untrue, but may have been specific to this one staffie.
this particular staffie attacked a jack russell, ripped a huge chunk out of the jack russell's neck, and bit it's bottom. luckily the jack russell is still alive and doing well, and the staffie's owner is being charged. the staffie was not on a lead and not wearing a muzzle, and the owner did nothing to stop her dog. there's also the possibility this has happened before.
anyway, with this in mind, again, is it true that staffie's don't start fights with other dogs, or is this staffie the exception?
if this can't be verified, i think this statement should be removed, as it's misleading.
---
You can't say that staffs do or don't start fights. A dog that starts a fight does so for reasons such as feeling threatened, protecting territory/owner, or maybe it has been handled in a way that has taught the dog to become violent. A dog does not start a fight because it is an SBT. It is purely based on circumstance not breed. It could have been the Jack Russell attacking the SBT and not the other way around, it is just as likely. 'They will not start fights with other dogs...' I do not believe this can be said with certainty as every dog is different, but then again I doubt a dog will attack another just because of what breed it is.
---
exactly what i said above, it can't be said that they do or don't. therefore i will remove the statement. in the case above, however, it was definitely the SBT that attacked the Jack Russell. the SBT wasn't on a lead, and wasn't muzzled, and the dog ran across the road to get to the Jack Russell, so i don't think this is a case of feeling threatened or protecting it's owner. the owner shouted to the jack russell owner, please, keep your dog away from mine, it's not safe, and then the SBT attacked. the fact the owner knew her SBT was like this, she should have had it on a lead and possibly muzzled. i don't have any respect for owners who don't train their dogs.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.221.133.211 (talk) 09:15, August 22, 2007 (UTC) 
     The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a fairly uncommon dog in the United States.  If you look at the number of SBT breeders listed around the internet and puppies that are actually available for sale on some of the puppy for sale websites you will find that the number of breeders with Staffordshire Bull Terriers is very small.  The most reputable kennel club is the AKC and that is what nearly all SBT are registered under, also the UKC has a growing number of SBT's.  The breed standard for a SBT according to any of the breed registries is 38 pounds or less.  While some are larger than the 38 pounds, I know for a fact that Sonshine Stafford’s in CA has a couple males that are 45-48 pounds which is huge according to the standard.  Many people do not know the difference between a SBT and an American Staffordshire Terrier.  The American Staffordshire Terrier is registered in the AKC as the American Staffordshire Terrier and is registered under the UKC and several other registries as an American Pit-bull Terrier.  If you go to any AMStaff page you will see that if they are dual registered they are AKC and UKC, but with two different names.  With the SBT this is not the case a Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a Staffordshire Bull Terrier no matter what registry you look at.  It is its own breed and is as related to the AMstaff and Pit Bull as an English Bulldog is.  They come from the same lines but are bred with different reasons.  Another thing about all bully breeds is they commonly do not start fights it is body language that will set off a dog to attack.  If you are nervous as the handler, the dog will be nervous.  If you are calm the dog will be calm or it will try to take control.  For that reason being calm is good, but with being calm a sense of Assertiveness, like you have a feeling of power is necessary to control a dog, especially a bully breed.  Many of these dogs attack due to a look from another dog, which is one of the forms of body language that dogs use to challenge or stand up to other dogs.  With bully breeds including SBT, Amstaffs, and APBT they are not the ones to sit back and have a staring contest they will be the ones to initiate a physical attack after being provoked with something as simple as a stare from the biggest dog out there to the smallest dog out there.  If someone had the time I would like to try and figure out of all of attacks by "pitbulls"  were the dogs AKC registered in the USA and KC registered in England for the UK which is the most reputable and recognized registries in the world.  It is a lack of education and knowledge about the differences between the cousins SBT, Amstaff, and Pitbulls.  They are generally assumed as one due to their similar appearance to each other.  I have owned an Amstaff and currently own two Staffordshire Bull terriers whom are AKC registered and there is a tremendous difference between the two temperaments wise.  It is mostly due to AKC registered Staffordshire Bull Terrier breeders breed for the right reasons which are temperament first, looks second, and that there are such a small number of breeders/dogs throughout the US in comparison to other dogs such as the Pit-bull which is commonly a backyard bred dog from my experience living in Montgomery, AL.  In the newspaper classifieds there are at least twenty to thirty listings a week for Pit bulls. Not AKC Amstaffs or SBT's.  I take my dogs to the vet here and they have never seen a SBT in person which I would say literally 85% of the US population hasn’t either. And there is different temperaments between breeders and bloodlines, plus the average price for an AKC or UKC registered Staffordshire bull terrier is $1200 which keeps the dog in such good quality whereas you can find $100-$200 pit bull puppies in excess due to irresponsible backyard breeders and puppy mills and irresponsible owners breeding unregistered dogs to make a couple hundred dollars having no clue where their back round comes from, which is becoming a problem with SBT's in England in recent years(I lived there for two years as well) the cheap backyard breeding promotes irresponsible breeding and irresponsible ownership in some cases where the owner doesn’t get the dog spayed or neutered, which should be automatic with a non-registered dog, because it is in every breeds best interest to breed the best of their breed and strive to keep those breeds quality dogs.  Don’t take this as my opinion it is what I have found through personal experience and research for the last 4 years of just about every breeder in the United States for SBT and Amstaffs and Pitbulls.  SBT are unique dogs and should only be classified as a cousin to the Amstaff and Pitbulls just as an English bulldog would be and never included in the same group for research or other statistical purposes.  The only thing SBT are guilty of is having the appearance of smaller version of a pit-bull.  Meet just one SBT and you will like the dog. (I know this distracts from the original reason for the discussion here but I felt I would share my knowledge for more understanding of persons who did not know.  Well now you know and knowing is half the battle!  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlause (talk • contribs). 
A correctly trained Staffie is unlikely to start a fight with another dog although like any dog if they are not familiarised with other dogs they can be agressive. Generally where a Staffie is blamed for starting a fight with another dog the other dog involved is a smaller breed as in the example above a Jack Russel Terrier the fight is started by the smaller dog as it feels threatened by the presence of the larger dog for want of a better term "small man syndrome" I have seen a Staffie happily playing with smaller dogs when a male JRT joined in and imediatly set on the Staffie with what could have been a sad ending for both dogs but luckily the owner of the Staffie like any good owner of any animal should do was paying attention and reacted quickly and called his dog off not only did the Staffie walk away from the fight it was also the only animal injured in the scuffle having a peice of cheek torn away while walking away from the encounter as it did no more then growl and bear its teeth  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.53.167 (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  attacking other dogs? 

message: I think that the part of the miscellaneous section about the way that staffies lie on the ground is completely unverifiable (and false?). It says: "'Staffies' have another peculiar characteristic. When lying down in a resting position they sit, rather than domestic dogs or wolves, with their hind legs tucked in, but rather with them splayed out behind them... Why Staffies are otherwise unique in the dog family for doing so remains unclear."
Many dogs lie on the ground like this, it is not a trait specific to staffies.  This section needs to be edited (or removed) to reflect this.  Randomlyred 12:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Indeed, it's hardly a unique behavior to Staffies - it's commonly observed in puppies, although most dogs stop doing it as they grow older. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'Miscellaneous' section 

message: Isn't the use of gender-specific pronouns - 'him/her', 'he/she', etc. - in this piece rather clumsy and naive? Surely 'it' is the appropriate pronoun for animals and breeds..?
86.130.68.17 23:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  House Style 

message: Does it really need to be said that Staffies enjoy coffee? It seems too childish, and varying, to me. The Staffie I know of does not like the taste of coffee. RiotMonday 23:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coffee? 

message: Anyone care to add a health section for this breed? One of the biggest concerns, of course, being that they are short-nosed dogs, meaning they have more difficulty breathing in hot weather and tend to overheat faster than long-nosed dogs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiotMonday (talk • contribs) 23:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health? 

message: The phrase "There is no doubt that Staffies are the safest and friendliest of the bull terrier breeds." is completely subjective and is impossible to prove.  Should probably be removed.
Actually, it should not be removed, but rather the author should give statistics and sources supporting this.  If one researches the breed online, there are numerous articles pointing out how there are no documented deadly attacks by Staffordshire Bull Terriers in North America.  Also, in spite of erroneous assumptions to the contrary by many who are ignorant about the breed (those who lump it in with other "Pit Bulls" that have attacked people), Staffordshire Bull Terriers (not the same breed as the American Staffordshire Bull Terrier or the American Pit Bull Terrier) are not known for attacking humans.  In fact, it has been bred into them not to attack people.  It has also been bred into them to be particularly affectionate toward and protecive of children).
The above is true antecdotally.  I own a Staffie and I have friends who own Staffies (although it's an uncommon breed in the U.S.).  Every Staffie that I've come across loves people and particularly children.  They are hit and miss with other dogs, but reliable with humans.  Moreover, every owner of a bully breed, and particulalry an APBT or AmStaff should know the definition of gameness, which has nothing to do with aggressiveness.  I would challenge anyone to prove that Staffies, or other bully breeds, are human-agressive.  Gameness is a canine virtue that is most akin to the human virtue of unflagging courage. It is a determination to master any situation and never back down out of fear.  Generally speaking, a game dog is an emotionally stable, easy-going dog, especially good with kids. Gameness should not be confused with aggressiveness. There are plenty of aggressive dogs that are not game, and there are game pit bulls who are not aggressive toward other types of dogs.
I own a SBT and so do many friends they are all very good with children and will let the children do many things to them that other dogs would get angry with, such as sit on them, pull their ears, i have even seen one staffie draging a child round on his harness like some kind of game. But i would never live any child on their own with ANY kind of dog, this is becaue at the end of the day a dog is an animal and if a small child does something to annoy it it may resond in a way which seem fine towards an adult but not towards a child. I love my staff hes the best dog i have ever had. But a word of warnig about them they are very greedy and will chew your funriture so make sure you have plenty of chew toys  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.143.113 (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd phrase in passage 

message: I just want to add that according to French law, Staffordshire Bull Terriers with pedigrees are not subject to the law on dangerous dogs in France: they are neither 1st cat (attack) dogs nor 2nd cat (defence) dogs. French law recognizes that there is no proof that they present a particular danger (as opposed to the Pitbull, Boerbull, American bull, Tosa etc....) --Scotchorama (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French law 

message: This article is basically lifted verbatim from the Burkes Backyard website.  Probably a pretty good reference, but they should have been acknowledged.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.72.96 (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific about what you feel has been copied from the site and give a URL?  AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio? 

message: Hi, I have altered the facts box slightly.
I have changed the guard dog and watch dog ability to LOW, as before it stated HIGH. The stafford is an extremely poor guard dog and are not meant to be subjected to any training that ceates aggression towards humans. Although they can be protective of family members and their car they rarely guard their homes. I also changed the temperment by removing humourous, friendly and adoring to bold, fearless and totally reliable (KC standards). Staffords are certainly NOT naturally obedient. They were bred to think for themselves not to be commanded. Whoever has added this section does not have a Stafford!! Thanks, Rachel—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.72.96 (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to change it, you need to give a reliable source supporting. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts box 

message: The following article - http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,428158,00.html (german) - is on an incident where an American Staffordshire Terrier has bitten an old lady to death. So they're childfriendly but kill off the elderly? Some kind of society rejuvenation progam perhaps? I don't feel capable of rewriting the Staffordshire Terrier wiki article, being a strong dog hater and incapable of keeping a NPOV - but I really think it should be done. Essentially it trys to persuade people to disregard the dangers emanating from a Kampfhund (german word for a dog bred for fighting), so it reads like propaganda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you know the difference between American ST and the original SBT?! It's clear that you don't
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are the differences then? The one is a pet dog an the other nastily bytes people to death? Strikingly, both wikientries advertise their respective species as "friendly". As the species are closely related it might not be overly feasible to have them mentioned in different wikipedia articles - particularly if some of them defend "their" species as the one having to take the blame for the agressiveness of the others. Additionally I would suggest not using the word "Staffie" in an encyclopedia article, it makes the writers lack of npov all too obvious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All breeds of dog are of one species.  Breeds, strains, crossbreeds, and mixed breeds are different varieties of the single species Canis familiaris (sometimes classified as Canis lupus familiaris). 72.251.79.99 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A news article from german Spiegel 

message: Can't believe that this article neglected to mention that SBTs are banned or restricted in many parts of the world!  It seems like a pretty important point to mention when discussing this breed, so I put a new section in the article.  - Rachel 23:28, 3 Oct 2006
can u proceed to mention were they are banned because to my knowlegde they ar not banned ANYWHERE!!
You are probably making a very common mistake made by so many Ignorant people confusing a pure breed SBT with the Pitt bull terrier!!
Why are the SBT called nanny dogs???? think about it. Jo..
Any dog that is deemed a "pitbull or pitbull mix" is banned in Ontario Canada. It is a stupid law that is more of a guilty until proven innocent method than a fair law. The owner has to "prove" their dog isn't a "pitbull" which is defined as anything with pitbull, or staff(american or otherwise) in it. We've had dogs that a CKC judge has declared as a no pitbull mix be killed because a legal judge has diagreed....What a stupid law.
It is illegal in Miami-Dade county, Florida to house a "pitbull or pitbull mix".  
comment added by 24.234.110.186 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breed Specific Legislation 

message: Please, the Bull-and-Terrier was bred for the purpose of dog fighting, while specimens may have existed pre-1835, it was purposefully bred only following the prohibition of bullbaiting. Therefore, the dog could not have served as a bull or lion baiter - though some records show it was placed against apes armed w/ clubs and against Donkey. And the Staffordshire Terrier is a "Bullterrier" not because it descends from terriers matched against bulls, but because Terriers were crossed to Bulldogs to create the prototype/ancestor of this breed. Get your facts straight, seriously, it looks despicable.
There are many accounts of Bull Terriers being pitted against anything from a lion to a bull, it is a common misconception that the dog was bred for the purpose of dogfighting.
:: I added a reference to the American Kennel Club's website where they explain that the breed originated from the days of bull and bear baiting. But it should be noted that the article then goes on to explain that "Early in the 19th century the sport of dogfighting gained popularity and a smaller, faster dog was developed. It was called by names such as "Bulldog Terrier" and "Bull and Terrier." The Bulldog bred then was a larger dog than we know today and weighed about 60 pounds. This dog was crossed with a small native terrier which appears in the history of the present-day Manchester Terrier. The dog which this produced, averaging between 30 and 45 pounds, became the Staffordshire Bull Terrier." --Popoi (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get Your History Right 

message: I am, and have been a happy SBT owner for over 20 years.  I find it very disturbing that mis-informed, close-minded and ignorant people can believe the labelleing that the SBT has received, mainly by the media. Who, let's not forget, post articles to sell papers or attract viewers to make money.  Objective. I think not.  
I challenge any of these people to spend a little time with SBT's and get to know them before passing judgements or trying to get SBT's banned. I am certain that these people would find the SBT to be happy, strong, playful dogs with lovely personalities.
I agree that the SBT needs lots of attention, needs to be well socialised with both people and other dogs and needs to be supervised. But if a SBT owner is willing to devote the time necessary to keep a SBT they will not only have a beautiful pet but a loving member of the family.
Be objective and only pass judgement gained from personal experience.  Only then, are your comments fair and indeed valid.
Brad, loving SBT owner.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.116.180 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignorance is bliss! 

message: The current introductory paragraph states:
The Staffordshire Bull Terrier (informally: Staffie or Staffy) is a medium-sized, short-coated, old-time breed of dog, originally bred for bull baiting
Someone apparently requested a citation for that statement, and I added one from the AKC. As I discussed above, this description doesn't do the SBT's history full justice. The fact is that they were originally bred for dogfighting, but after that The sport of dogfighting had long been made illegal and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier had evolved into a dog of such temperament as to make him a fine pet and companion and a worthy show dog.
I propose we fully disclose the history of the SBT but also emphasize that the dog bred for fighting is long gone, and what we have today is a family dog. Here is my suggested revision:
The Staffordshire Bull Terrier (informally: Staffie or Staffy) is a medium-sized, short-coated, old-time breed of dog. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed has its origins in the bear and bull baiting breeds of Elizabethan era England and the dog fighting breeds of the early 19th centrury. In modern times, however, the breed has been appreciated for its loyalty, dependability, and good temperament.
Thoughts?
--Popoi (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: http://www.akc.org/breeds/staffordshire_bull_terrier/
Dear 212.183.134.65, the version you reverted to is "a more literate and informative version" because it is taken word-for-word from the above web page. Plagiarism from copyrighted web pages is not allowed on Wiki and will be reverted as soon as possible. Please do not restore plagiarized content. I'm sure there are references for this section, or even a slight rewrite of the AKC article with a reference would be fine. Bob98133 (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: the staffy breed is a loyal, placid yet fearless breed, dalmations and alsations are but two other dogs classed as dangerous. With a name like the nanny dog,this speaks volumes about the quality and reliability of this breed. A fearless protective nanny!
Dr Lee Dean
:I'm not sure the name is a valid reference for the breeds' behavior. See:  Bob98133 (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What an excellent breed 

message: Registered Staffordshire Bull Terriers were never affected by the BSL in the Netherlands. Is this inclusion in the article a) relevant b) written in the correct style?
see: http://www.torontohumanesociety.com/newsandevents/stories/2008/08-08g.asp
Benvenuto (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netherlands BSL 

message: There are dozens of references that refer to this breed as a Pit Bull. Please provide references as to why this should not be listed, or listed as obsolete.
http://www.breederretriever.com/dog-breeds/218/staffordshire-bull-terrier-pit-bull.php
http://www.bulldogbreeds.com/americanpitbullterrier.html
http://www.la-spca.org/dedication/talk/tt_AMstaff.htm
By the way, 212.., I didn't make this edit, but your rudeness and use of profanity encouraged me to document how wrong you were.
Bob98133 (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pit Bull? 

message: This is an encyclopedia, not a kennel club manual. We should not be espousing what a kennel club 'prefers' in a breed. These are animals and the facts should be stuck to, not a single opinion about what constitutes the perfect dog. Mfield (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the AKC 'preferred' box. Its highly POV and should not be part of a balanced article about a species. Mfield (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. This article has been plagued with personal comments and how-to type content, and has ended up a bit of a mess. Bob98133 (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started a complete overhaul and clean up. Mfield (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I do not think the Kennel Club is a neutral source of information on these dogs' temperament either for two reasons.  Firstly they are advocates for dogs and dog ownership in general, and secondly they are opposed to BSL so they have an interest in doing PR for targeted breeds.  It's not responsible to suggest these dogs are good with children without any balance or qualification.  There is a risk of someone taking this statement overly-literally and ignoring the dictum "never leave any dog alone with a child", which could result in a particularly severe mauling from a "staffie".  What is the meaning of the statement that these dogs are "good with children" anyway?  Since we have apparently to deal in typical dog-lover anthropomorphisized terms, when thinking of what I would consider the quality of being "good with children" in a fellow human, I would normally imagine some sort of sense of *responsibility*.  Obviously no dog, except perhaps the most trained specimens, has any real sense of responsibility whatsoever.  Being "friendly to children" and being "responsible with children" are two different things.  Paedophiles can appear to be extremely "friendly" to children.  Following the logic that these dogs are good with children, we should also add the statement that paedophiles are "often good with children" to the article on paedophiles.  I think the meaning that is meant to be conveyed is that "staffies" are "often affectionate and playful with children".  Fine.  I don't doubt they probably are.  We should counterbalance this by saying that like all dogs they can attack children without warning, and like all pitbull types they are notorious for particularly severe maulings of humans including children.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.200.221 (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The problem seems to be that there are no formal qualifications for "dog experts" other than established groups like AKC or AVMA whose opinions may be influenced by other motives, as you state. I think the only way this will work is by presenting a balance of views both from these orgs and others, and news sources, or even minority opinions if they are identified as such. This article is better and more balanced than it was a few months ago, so it's getting there. There will always be comments by owners on a subject like this, so they just have to be dealt with.  Bob98133 (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article need to be re-written 

message: Removed the following: "The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is known in Australia to have saved many children's lives. Children and these dogs are placed in a pen and left unattended. Anything from bugs to snakes are killed by the dogs, and along with anything that could be a hazard."
This makes it sound like studies have been conducted, putting snakes into pens with children to see if the dog would kill them haha. I'm guessing whoever wrote it meant there have been reports by the public of such events happening. Nevertheless the claim is strong, such that it should not be in the article until reports can be verified.
: Things like this make me wish that wikipedia articles on controversial topics would be especially short and filled with as few interpretations of gross facts as possible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.68.79 (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: An unverfied claim was challenged and removed. What is the problem? -Oosh (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experimenting with children and dogs? 

message: The article mentions how the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is often blamed for vicious attacks on people.  This is quite unfortunate because it has been bred into the Staffie to never attack people.  Even when this dog was a pit fighting breed back in the 1700's, owners would often carry injured Staffies home on the wagon right next to the baby.  I have done quite a bit of research on this and there does not appear to have ever been a single deadly attack on humans by a Staffordshire Bull Terrier in North America.  There have been many documented deadly attacks on humans by American Pit Bull Terriers (unscrupulous people have unfortunately bred many of those dogs for modern-day pit fighting, and as vicious guard dogs), and there have been 2 or 3 human deaths by American Staffordshire Terriers since the 1940's.  Even the weenie dog (datschund) has killed 2 people in the past 60 years in North America.  The Staffordshire Bull Terrier has killed exactly zero.  The larger ones (mine is approx. 85 pounds with a 28-inch round neck) can look like vicious pit-bulls, and could easily scare off would-be burglars who don't know the difference.  However, the dog would just as soon lick an intruder to death as to bite him.  And, all the stories you hear about Staffies being affectionate toward children are true.  In fact, it is downright bizarre and almost scary to watch how these dogs respond to children.  It appears to be bred into them to be especially loving to kids, and they somehow just know the difference between kids and adults.  I've owned many dogs in my lifetime, and in fact have several different breeds of dogs currently.  As useless as Staffies seem to be as guard dogs (other than looking tough), I wouldn't trade my Staffies away for any other breed.  You just have to make sure that the young ones have something to cut their teeth on or they might start thinking your furniture is a chew toy.
****There are no 80lb Staffordshire Bull Terriers from any reputable breeding program.  this is more than twice the size of a Stafford.  Please refer to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed standard from ANY kennel club for more information.  Your dog would appear to fit the standard for an American Pit Bull Terrier ( excellent breed of dog) American Stafforshire Terrier ( also excellent) or possibly a Stafford mixed with a very large breed of dog and therefore not true SBT.  Hope this helps.  Tony Avenson, Thunderstruck! Staffordshire Bull Terriers
§§§  It’s good you choose to defend the much maligned Stafforshire; it’s unfortunate you fail to grasp the harm maligning breeds unjustly can cause. Why have there been more documented attacks by Pit Bulls than Staffordshires? Mainly, because the lowlifes who want to own and/or fight vicious dogs ONLY know of Pit Bulls, or else have themselves bought into the myth that they are by nature more vicious than Stafforshires. The other explanation is that news reports of an attack by a Staff would almost certainly refer to it as a pitbull. The word “Pitbull“ makes for a more sensational headline than would “Staffordshire,” which would mean nothing to most Americans. 
In fact, with a converstation with the head of the American Humane Society a few years ago, he remarked that most fatal attacks reported as having been committed by pit bulls were not actually purebred pit bulls at all. Any remotely bully breed is likely to be referred to in such situations as a “pit bull.” Even boxers and part boxers have been called pit bulls in some articles, and, in fact, on labels in some dog pounds. 
You speak of Staffordshires being bred not to attack humans. If you’ve ever seen “Animal Precinct” on the Animal Planet channel you will have noticed how little fear animal control officers have of pit bulls they seize in the big cities where they have become very common in gang situations. None-the-less, in some cities - Detroit, for example - they are killed as soon as seized or surrendered, with no chance to be adopted. 
The Staffordshire is named for the mining town in Britain where they were bred for pit fighting; the Pit Bull and the American Staffordshire derived whatever temperament they have from the Staffordshire’s “fighting spirit.” In fact, though, it is much more difficult to breed temperament or behavior into a dog than to breed changes in its appearance. In my own experience I have worked training two pit bulls for service dog routines; the only dogs in the program that became violent were a golden retriever (a seasoned service dog) and a German Shepherd. The pit bulls placidly ignored the quarrels. 
In defending a breed of which you are fond you unfairly condemn another. I guess you shouldn’t be surprised when equally uninformed people condemn the Staffordshire, which, like the Pit Bull, the American Staffordshire, the American Bulldog, the Bull Terrier, the Boxer, or other dogs originally bred for blood sports, is an excellent, good-natured breed when not deranged by cruel training techniques. 
~ John Mayer
Wrong - A Staffordshire Bull Terier attacked and killed a baby boy.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7876508.stm  81.155.106.207 (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That case was later proven to be an A.P.B.T renamed to avoid persucution--CarbriniTek (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's the evidence of this?
John Mayer said:
"The Staffordshire is named for the mining town in Britain where they were bred for pit fighting"
It might be named for the county of Staffordshire, but it isn't certainly named for any mining town called 'Staffordshire' in Britain, because there isn't one.  There is a town called Stafford which is the 'county town' of Staffordshire. - 94.194.113.136 (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Deadly Attacks by Staffordshire Bull Terriers 

message: I marked the claim about "special empathy for children" by the NZKC as dubious. There is no doubt that the breed is known for its affinity with humans, but to claim that the breed demonstrates "special empathy" without any kind of scientific source to back it is a bit much for an encyclopedia. It smacks of opinion rather than proven fact. Mfield (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: The section headed 'Affinity With People' is questionable:
"Staffords are large-hearted and their way of showing that they love human beings does not express itself by a friendly wag of the tail and gentle lick of the tounge. This is a dog that will launch itself at visitors and even, when trained to be more controlled, will still be a fussy pet nudging and pawing the object of his affection in order to win a stroke and a pat in response. If you want a quiet reserved dog who knows his place and will wait to be asked to join in the game, then a stafford is not for you. It is recorded that fighting dogs often changed hands to settle debts or raise funds, but whatever the causes it is a well known fact that staffords are amazingly adaptable at changing home or even owners. Unfortunately, this does make them easy prey for dognappers from whom they will need protection. [14]
RSPCA chief vet Mark Evans said: "Staffies have had a terrible press, but this is not of their own making - in fact they're wonderful dogs. If people think that Staffies have problems, they're looking at the wrong end of the dog lead! When well cared for and properly trained they can make brilliant companions. Our experience suggests that problems occur when bad owners exploit the Staffie's desire to please by training them to show aggression" [15]."
I started out intending to tidy up the punctuation and spelling a little bit, but the more I read these two paragraphs the more doubtful I became.  There is a reference for the claim made at the end of each paragraph (first that Staffordshires need protecting from dognappers, and second the quote from the RSPCA chap).  Even so, the section reads as though it's a puff piece for the dogs, written by an obvious fan of the breed in a very casual and (in my view) unencyclopaedic style.  'Large-hearted' I can live with, just (if it's referenced); but in stating how they express their affection for humans, why start by telling the reader what they don't do?  There's no need for that entire convoluted first sentence when we could just say "Staffords are very friendly towards humans and show their affection by jumping up, fussing, nudging and pawing", or some such.
Also, if something's a 'well-known fact' then it doesn't need to be in an encyclopaedia.  If it does need to be in an encyclopaedia - i.e. it's notable and relevant and supported with proper references - then I don't think we should be telling the reader that it's a 'well-known fact', because it implies criticism of the reader if s/he didn't happen to know it.
Initially I wasn't going to try rewriting this section - I have to declare that I'm not at all a fan of this breed of dog.  From experience I know that (whether by training or temperament) they can be extremely vicious and aggressive, and - although I recognise this isn't the dog's fault - they're the essential weapon-of-choice accessory for every wannabe in my district; so I admit I have quite a strong dislike for this breed.  I'm hoping I've kept that sentiment out of my edits, though - but if anyone thinks they can improve on my fragile neutrality I'd urge them to try.  Please, though, do try to keep it neutral: this is a descriptive article.  It doesn't need to be a fancier's manual. - 94.194.113.136 (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Affinity With People" Rewritten 

message: Substituted at 15:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: This section is original research, inaccurate and lacks NPOV.
First the title reflect the behavior of the press, yet the article points out speculation that breeders and owners are using the wrong breed name.  Note no one is stating that the press is doing anything wrong. 
Ex.
It states '...the press have reported many cases of attacks by Staffordshire Bull Terriers or dogs described as a "Staffordshire bull terrier cross".'
Then  states  'The RSPCA fears that breeders are renaming pit bull terriers as Staffordshire bull terriers to avoid prosecution.'
The press is reporting the breed of the dog as registered by the breeders, kennel club,  and owners.   You can't blame the press for correctly reporting breed of the dog correctly.   Additionally Austrlia is not a state, its a country and or continent.  
Next the author writes "Several media, council and government reports in New South Wales (NSW) between 2002 and 2010 identified the Staffordshire bull terrier as the leading breed of dog responsible for biting humans... in that state of Australia." 
The author  sites an ABC (about Jack Russell Terriers) that accurately reports Stafforshire Bull Terriers were listed as the #1 attacker in a report from NSW for the period between October and December of 2009."  There is nothing about an 8 year period mentioned.  I guess the wiki author is upset that ABC would share information from the NSW government.
Next the author states "However, this is likely due to the sheer number of them in the community, with only a small percentage of the breed causing an issue." and sites a paper opposing BSL by "Dr Kersti Seksel" with information about dog attacks in 90's which describes alternatives to the 1998 BSL.  The papper not a scientific article nor from a credible news organization.  It was the opinion of one dog behaviorist on BSL andaggressive dogs in the '90s.
Lastly the author writes "A 2012 report places the American Staffordshire Bull Terrier 19th when dog attacks are weighted by breed population in NSW".  The other sites Council Reports of Dog Attacks in NSW for 2010 and 2011.   The report shows that of attacks by pure bred dogs Bull Terrier (Stafforshire) were #1 in dog attacks.  There were no mention of American Staffordshire bull terriers.  In the end none of that matters because its all original research and nothing to do with the press.   
I will repeat this section is in-accurate, primary research and opinion.  I will remove it for the betterment of Wikipedia. Mantion (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "===Press on bad behaviour===" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081229112223/http://www.vetstreamcanis.co.uk:80/%5Ccorporate%5Chtml%5CBreed-relatedcancer%5CBreed-relatedcancer.htm to http://www.vetstreamcanis.co.uk/%5Ccorporate%5Chtml%5CBreed-relatedcancer%5CBreed-relatedcancer.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger discussion 

message: *NOTE: I've posted notice of this discussion on WikiProject Dogs. Atsme✍🏻📧 19:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: , 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.Daniel Foggo and Adam Lusher, "Trade in 'Irish' pit bulls flouts dog law", telegraph.co.uk, published 2 June 2002. (Archived 3 August 2018).  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".
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Irish" Staffordshire section

message: , 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)
replies: text: , 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: British Commonwealth definitions

message: 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)
replies: text: No, , 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)
replies: text: , I agree with , the current image is the best of those available. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Main image 

message: I think the Template message below needs a complement Adventurous36 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not to be confused with... 

message: Notice to the most recent article watchers - , ,  - 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Potential GA 

message: Recognising our current discussion about the involvement of Hinks in the development of the Stafford, below is what I believe to be an improved history section:
I believe this to be improved for a number of reasons:
*it covers the history chronologically from Old English Bulldog to recognition
*it adequately covers the divergence of the Bull Terrier and the Am Staff
*it reintegrates the formation of the first breed club, the selection of the name and KC recognition into the history section, these are critical parts of the modern breed’s history than cannot be relegated to a separate recognition section
I am very open to discussion and suggestions for improvements. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Improved history section

message: , I was of the understanding that consensus has determined the classification of the Stafford as a pit bull did not worthy of the lead, is this a mistake? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My sincere apologises, I was looking at the wrong revision. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my mistake - I fixed it when I got your first notice. Atsme Talk 📧 16:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pit bull again