Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Hazards of ownership

I would also like to draw attention to this paper [1], which says, Breeds such as Pit Bull terrier [35] and Staffordshire Bull terrier [36] are described in Breed Standards as “excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children” or “Highly intelligent and affectionate especially with children” despite their history as fighting dogs, their weight and strength. Their specific style of biting, “hold and tear”, can cause fatal injuries in minutes [7], and the biting combined with violent shaking exacerbates the injuries (Burns, Kusanale, & Brennan, 2011). Additionally, bull breeds are known to be aggressive to other dogs, which indirectly increases the risk of injuries to humans who may try to protect their own dogs from the attacking dog [37]. Geogene (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It's an anyalysis that dates back to fatal dog attacks in Europe 1995–2016. Staffords are mentioned once, not because they attacked, but because whoever wrote the paper happened to mention them and provided information that dates back to 2011, over a decade ago, that has long since been debunked. Who still believes chicken soup cures the common cold?

Breeds such as Pit Bull terrier [35] and Staffordshire Bull terrier [36] are described in Breed Standards as “excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children” or “Highly intelligent and affectionate especially with children” despite their history as fighting dogs, their weight and strength. Their specific style of biting, “hold and tear”, can cause fatal injuries in minutes [7], and the biting combined with violent shaking exacerbates the injuries (Burns, Kusanale, & Brennan, 2011). Additionally, bull breeds are known to be aggressive to other dogs, which indirectly increases the risk of injuries to humans who may try to protect their own dogs from the attacking dog [37].

That article provides -0- relevant information. It does state: This figure should be interpreted with caution, as FCI focuses on purebred dogs, which are a very small minority, and only provide crude estimates of total dog numbers. Hello? MINORITY. This article is about a purebred dog that is verifiable by two of the world's leading official dog registries; i.e., AKC and KC. All you are doing is further validating my position, which happens to be expert level in this topic area, not that it means anything to some WP editors - it's ok with me, I don't care - but it's funny that expert opinions only matter when one is seeking an expert opinion, but when those opinions do not agree with their POV, they don't count, do they? And your point for even mentioning this article? Seriously...cars are far more dangerous, and almost everyone of age has one. Better yet, let's go to the scary 18-wheelers - they are the "pit bulls" of the trucking industry. Compare the injury/death statistics and see how often those fatalities are mentioned in our articles about commercial trucking/trucks - you know, the deadly 18-wheelers. Let's create a list about 18-wheeler fatalities. You want to talk about dangerous to human life? There are about 471+/- million dogs in the world vs 278+/- commercial vehicles. Compare the death rates. In 2016, dogs killed 45 Europeans - and that is ALL OF EUROPE and ALL DOGS, not just Staffords - which translates to an incidence of 0.009 per 100,000 inhabitants. Dogs are animals, but trainable, considered domestic. So who is to blame for these fatalities with 18-wheelers? Is it the truck driver, the truck, the vehicle they hit? In the case of dogs, is it the dog, the dog owner, the person who was bitten? Let's look at the stats for 18-wheelers...in Texas alone in 2017 (which regularly has the highest number of fatal truck accidents) 556 fatalities were reported - that's a single state, not all of the US. California was second with 320, then Florida with 275. These stats are sourced to a law firm that appear to be the experts in this area. Corroborate the numbers - do the math. If you are truly concerned about human life to the point that you want to create fear in our readers who read this article thinking that these dogs are vicious, you are targeting the wrong topic area, and have totally missed the notability proportions for inclusion of such material. No pun intended, but you and the IP are barking up the wrong tree if you are looking for notable human deaths. At least with the vehicles, there are positive IDs as to the brand of vehicle/truck. With dogs, there is not. Think about it. Atsme 💬 📧 22:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

We're not talking about 18 wheelers, we're talking about Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Geogene (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I read the paper, and it's a reliable source, but it's largely about variables other than the breed of the dog. There is one section that addresses the breed, and both of you have quoted in full the paragraph that is relevant to this page, as opposed to dogs in general. And the quoted paragraph treats it as "on the one hand, on the other hand", rather than an all-out warning against certain breeds. We can probably put something on the page from this, but it should not go beyond what the source says. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact, the paragraph just before the paragraph about the terriers says in part: Important information includes who bred and raised the dog in question, if there were more litters from same parental material, the criteria the breeders used when selecting the breeding stock and to whom is the breeder sells the puppies. That's the authors making it clear that they regard such things as raising, training, and ownership, as distinguished from genetics, as being important in determining breed behavior. So they attribute some of it to the hold-and-tear genetics, but they also attribute some of it to human treatment. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems like the authors of that paper might have a problem with this article stating things like, The Stafford is considered a family pet and companion dog, and is among the breeds recommended by the KC for families.[7][41] Geogene (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

As you quoted them, the authors quote the Breed Standards as saying favorable things about them as good companions for families and children. Where the sentence pivots via "despite their history as...", I'm trying to evaluate what the authors intend, without trying to read something into it that isn't there. Are they saying that they are refuting what the Breed Standards say, or are they presenting two sides of the issue? I'm honestly not sure. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It's marketing speech. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I take your point about the potential for marketing speech in the Breed Standards, but I don't feel that this applies to the choice of scientists in a peer-reviewed scientific journal to quote it.

I've been thinking about how to treat this source for this page. As I said earlier, I think it's a reliable source. I think it could be useful to summarize it on a page about dog ownership in general, as opposed to a page like this, about a single breed. The source includes a section about differences between breeds, much of which is about how people treat different breeds differently, with one paragraph that we have been discussing in detail here. The rest of the source is about things other than breed traits, focusing mostly on the demographics of people who are more or less at risk of harm from domestic dogs. The paper abstract includes nothing about breeds. So it's not a source primarily about Staffies. If we cite the source for that one paragraph, we have to put in an awful lot of context. Otherwise, we would be misrepresenting the source in a POV way. I think that would require a couple of sentences, at least, and not just one sentence. And I think that runs up against WP:DUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Irish Bull Terrier IBT or Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier

This breed came to pass in 1948 when the original SBT breed standard was changed by those in the show business via the English KC for smaller less athletic dogs. Sadly the old breed was never accepted and now allegedly classed as APBTs by the RSPCA even though they looked quite different and smaller. They are classified nowadays as the Irish Staffy as most are to be found on the emerald isle.

https://www.dogbreedinfo.com/irishstaffordshirebullterrierphotos.htm https://petkeen.com/dog-breeds/irish-staffordshire-bull-terrier/ 88.97.39.126 (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Neither of those are reliable sources. No kennel club seems to recognise the breed from my search. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Popularity and Registrations.

I can't speak to other countries but in New Zealand most mongrels/pit bull type dogs are registered as 'Staffordshire Bull Terrier' to avoid dangerous dog laws, the vast majority are not actually Staffies. So I'm wondering if this is true of other countries: if Staffordshire Bull Terrier is used to register banned/restricted dogs to get around the law. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, in the UK, registration is mandatory for all dogs but doesn't have to include recording the dog's breed. Statista reckons there are only a few thousands Staffies registered per year (https://www.statista.com/statistics/921380/staffordshire-bull-terrier-registered-number-united-kingdom-uk/#:~:text=Number%20of%20Staffordshire%20Bull%20Terrier%20dogs%20registered%20in%20the%20UK%202011%2D2023&text=This%20statistic%20shows%20the%20number,Bull%20Terriers%20in%20the%20UK.), suggesting a total population in the vague ballpark of 50k or so given their average lifetime, but https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10370710/ counted 94k in a demographic study of 2.25 million dogs, which, given estimates of UK pet dog population ranging from 10m to 12m, implies there are actually more like half a million pet staffies - around 90% of which are presumably registered with no breed information.

Might be worth adding this stuff to the article in some way but will require care to do so in a way that is both accurate and also non-WP:SYNTH. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable source

@Atsme: regarding this edit [2], are you sure that "Staffieclub.com" is a reliable source? Geogene (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Geogene. I believe, per WP guidelines, that context matters in this case, re: the breed being referred to as a "nanny dog". I don't see a need to add more sources unless you think it would be helpful. There are plenty out there to substantiate the term "nanny dog" has been used to describe them. It's also important to include that while many people believe dogs are like their "family", our article is pragmatic and factual in that each dog, regardless of breed, is an individual, and behavior is subject to many things; i.e., environment, early developmental stages, training, health, etc. without going into detail. Needing supervision appears to be a good encyclopedic alternative. Atsme 💬 📧 00:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: There are plenty out there to substantiate the term "nanny dog" has been used to describe them. Probably there are, so why are we using that one? Geogene (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I added more RS, but we need to keep in mind that the purpose of this paragraph is to clarify the origins of the ubiquitous term "nanny dog" etc., so readers will know its origins. To claim the AKC and a reputable kennel club are not reliable sources is a ^[stretch]. AKC is world-renowned as a breed and dog temperament authority and is listed as a reliable source by university animal science departments, such as ANSCI Cornell. The cited breed kennel club is also reputable at a professional and academic level. Now that the material has again been reverted with a frivolous edit summary, I requested admin help to avoid edit warring. Atsme 💬 📧 12:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It is listed as a reliable source for breeding and agility. And even if so: https://0x0.st/Xg1Y.png I'm not sure why you're linking the breed club's own website to state it is reputable at an academic material. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

One of the sources that was cited and removed is this one: [3], from The New York Times. That one is undeniably reliable. Even if we decide to omit sourcing to kennel clubs, at least on the grounds that it probably isn't worth arguing about, it seems to me that some version of the reverted text could be restored, with that source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

If so, it should be presented as an attributed POV to Lilian Rant, mentioning her position as president of a breed club. as a breed club magazine editor Geogene (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The use of that reference in text was a primary source for the original quote/origin. Not as an actual reference for the information, at least that is how it appears.

Also as Geogene points out it is attributed in the source so it should be attributed here, but without any real supporting RS it is just some random text and cannot be established as the origin of the phrase/idea. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a historical claim, and if there were a "serious" historical article, I don't think this would be a good enough source. Geogene (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to attributing the description. I've looked some more, and there is this book: [4], which I obviously have not read (and I note that it appears to have been self-published), but the term is clearly a term that has been used. However, and this is, I think, important to note, according to a bunch of probably non-RS sources, such as these: [5], [6], the use of this term to describe Staffies is considered to be a "myth". So at this point, I'd be reluctant to describe the breed in this way as a fact, but it may be reasonable to have some text about how it has been inaccurately described by this term. Here are some RS sources: [7], [8]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This epidemiology paper [9] says, Second, the marketing of dog breeds as “nanny dogs” should be prohibited because there is no evidence that such dogs exist. So this is really just marketing speech. Geogene (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a valid point. I would not be opposed to, instead, adding a small amount of text to the page, noting the moniker, and indicating what such sources say about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)