Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Killer Breed

I'm really surprised that there are not many references in the article to the fact that this breed routinely kills people, particularly children. The internet is littered with articles about people being killed by Staffordshire Bull Terriers. It seems that there are a number of Staffordshire Bull Terrier enthusiasts on here who keep moulding this article with positive points as opposed to the truth that this breed is s killer. 146.90.15.7 (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? Cavalryman (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC).

Then you know little about the breed I can very safely say SBT when brought up nicely are truly lovely animals. The sensationalising media have demonised this breed along with its cousins the Am Staff and ISBT. Anyway not much longer now before the DDA will be rewritten as Vets / Kennel Clubs are on the side of reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Please dont remove legitimate comment or your editing rights may be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

You know nothing about Pitbulls and staffie (English staffies look like they are smiling and the American ones are taller then American bully and have pointy ears) Read this https://www.therealpitbull.com/facts/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B105:CEA3:8538:8A78:1D69:A5A5 (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Bull and terrier

I am of the opinion that Bull and terrier should be merged into this page. Since rewriting the history section of this article two years ago, more and better sources have become available to me, and the vast majority consider the two one and the same, several stating explicitly the Bull and Terrier became the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The current breed name Staffordshire Bull Terrier was only adopted in the 1930s in order to gain recognition for the breed with the Kennel Club, but the article should very definitely retain this name. Cavalryman (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC).

Cavalryman, mostly I'm inclined to defer to your opinion – this is not an area I'm particularly (or really even marginally) familiar with. But given the second sentence of our Bull and terrier article ("It was a crossbreed that was the progenitor of several modern standardised breeds (Bull-type terriers), including the Bull Terrier, Miniature Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier"), are we really sure that this and no other breed descended from it? Should we not let these particular sleeping dogs lie? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It is that last thought that has made me stop before now. I am unsure about the Dogs Argentino (it looks a little like romanticised OR) but the others definitely do descend from the B&T, but the overwhelming number of quality sources either imply or state explicitly that the Staffie is the B&T, just with a new brand; the history of the Staffie is that of the B&T until the 1930s. The B&T article has been on my to do list for some time (I think the Staffie’s history needs a little refresh also), but when I do the former we will have a bit of a CFORK. Cavalryman (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC).

Fascinating position. Where does its nearest cousin, the English Bull Terrier, fit into this picture? William Harris (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The English Bull Terrier was created as a refined version of the B&T by outcrosses with collies and English White Terriers, it was then widely shown under the name Bull Terrier and achieved Kennel Club recognition under that name. Having had their preferred breed name effectively stolen and copyrighted by an imposter, the breeders of B&Ts had to settle with the name Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC).

This [1] also appears to be informative, with the "Bully" stated as coming directly from various crossings of bulldog with terrier - plus some more elegant breeds thrown into the mix. Therefore, there is no need for a "Bull & Terrier" dog type to be in between, which adds to your argument. William Harris (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. William Harris (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: The Bull and Terrier was an important middle step in creating many bully breeds as noted in this chart. Certainly, NOT just the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. It is often written up as it's own historical breed in books. There is plenty of room for this article at Wikipedia and allows room to expand the article over time. In addition, ten Wikipedia's in various languages have the Bull and terrier as a separate article. Blockhouse321 (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Struck comment from two time TBAN evading sockpuppet of the article’s creator. Cavalryman (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC).

What I see provided here is a link to a chart taken from the internet of unknown origin, with no author nor references provided, depicting a collection of dogs referred to as "Bully". This is hardly providing a WP:RELIABLE source to support your position. Do you have anything else? William Harris (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I oppose it the Bull and Terrier is clearly a separate breed of dog.Dwanyewest (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest: you say clearly these two are separate, can you provide any reliable sources to verify that statement? The Bull and Terrier page was created by a known disruptive Sockpuppeteer who has been topic banned from dog fighting breed articles because of their disruption in this area. Further, as shown above, a majority of reliable sources state they are one and the same. Cavalryman (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC).

The AKC recognise the Bull and Terrier as progenitor of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier[2] Dwanyewest (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest: the AKC are notoriously unreliable when it comes to breed histories, and particularly so when it comes to the SBT, on their SBT breed page they claim James Hinks was involved in the breed’s development, that is contradicted by literally every other source on the subject (but interestingly that page actually supports this merger saying The Bull-and-Terrier, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Pit-dog, and the Brindle Bull are a few of the Stafford’s historical aliases.). The article you have linked here makes some other significant mistakes, the Bull Terrier and SBT did not diverge, the aforementioned James Hinks crossbred B&Ts/SBTs with English White Terriers and Collies to achieve the colour and head shape of that breed, whilst the SBT remained unchanged. Cavalryman (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC).

@Dwanyewest: whilst I remain unconvinced by their website’s accuracy, I have just found a book written by the American Kennel Club which is published by a reputable external publishing house, The complete dog book. It makes several statements about the Bull and Terrier:

• "... originally called the Bull-and-Terrier Dog, Half and Half, and at time Pit Dog and Pit Bullterrier. Later, it assumed the name in England of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier." Page 318.
• "It [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was called by names such as “Bulldog Terrier” and “Bull and Terrier”." Page 369.

Does this assuage some of your doubts? Cavalryman (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC).

• Oppose. A cursory look at Bull and terrier says B&T is part of the history of multiple different breeds. Breeds mentioned in B&T article with B&T as a progenitor: Bull Terrier, Miniature Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier, as well as Fox Terrier, Airedale Terrier, rat-working terriers, working black and tan terriers and most all other vermin-hunting terriers. The B&T article is a full blown article in its own right. There are a lot of 'overlapping' articles in Wikipedia and I don't think there is a guideline against that. Surely there is no downside to leaving B&T in an article of its own so it could be linked to from the history sections of those other breeds. Rather, if you merge the content, then other breed histories mentioning B&T will wind up with a link to Staffordshire Bull Terrier (which is not part of their history). Platonk (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Platonk: do you have any sources to verify what the article says? As articulated above, quality sources say they are one and the same? Cavalryman (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC).

Greetings @Cavalryman: No sources, just my logic applied to what I know about breeds, their changes over time, and people's perceptions/thoughts when they read things. What I got from what I read was that the majority of the sources are saying their breeds are from the old B&T (not SBT), and you say there are a few sources indicating SBT is simply the new name of B&T (circa 1930s). Ok, let's assume all those writings are true. And we know that breeds morph over time, so the post-1930-SBT (especially today, 90 years later) isn't the same as the pre-1930-B&T. I'm assuming those other breeds were created pre-1930. If you put B&T into article SBT, you're basically saying they are one and the same. And the reader who reads about an Airedale is going to be directed to the SBT article and might think to themselves, "I guess my dog is sort of a pit bull". Whacky, but that's what location in Wikipedia has the potential to do.

And if you merge B&T into SBT, you're going to have to put all that hunting and fighting history in SBT, too. I see some is there, but I would think that the history section of SBT would be more about how B&T became SBT, and less about B&T's old history (which is ancient history to SBT).

And then there's 'due weight' (and keep in mind how everyone, rightly or wrongly, takes Wikipedia's word as truth and republishes stuff they find on Wikipedia): if the majority of the sources say that their breed comes from the old B&T (not SBT), and you have a few sources saying SBT is simply B&T renamed, would location of the material within Wikipedia (in SBT article versus a separate B&T article) give more weight to the few sources over the majority sources? Will the new generation of "got all my research done on Wikipedia" start publishing articles saying how Airedales came from Staffordshire Bull Terriers?

I guess I'm just trying to drive home the point that even if B&T equaled SBT in 1930, does B&T=SBT today? Do you want to 'collapse time' and bring everyone to thinking that oldB&T=todaySBT? Keeping separate articles keeps the time (and changes that happen over time) separated. Might it not be better to leave the B&T article separate so that there's no mistaking that it was the precursor to SBT (and a few others)? Just consider the pros and cons of merging the information. What is the benefit of merging the two articles, and what would be the results or consequences? Just some things to think about. Platonk (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Platonk: welcome back to Wikipedia, I know it’s been 11 months but it feels much longer, pandemic and all. Yes this would involve a serious expansion of the history section and due acknowledgement/explanation in the lead. Cavalryman (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC).

@Platonk: I gather from the above that you are worried this article’s history section will become more about the B&T, given most quality sources state they are the same thing that is wholly appropriate. Do you have any meaningful policy based rationale for opposing this merger, or again can you point to any sources that state they are different? Cavalryman (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC).

@Platonk: I notice you seem have stepped away from participating in all topics related to dogs and canines, but I ask again do you have any sources or meaningful policy based rationale for opposing this merger? Cavalryman (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC).

@Cavalryman: Asked and answered! I left this discussion because within hours of me answering your question, you completely dismantled then co-opted a new template I had just made elsewhere, without any discussion, and you didn't answer my question to you about it. That, plus the strange personal-like comments you directed at me [3] [4], and the WP:OWN behavior you display on this talk page, suggests the template destruction was a hostile act (perhaps to game this proposal) rather than one based in logic or policy. Therefore, I am not interested in interacting with you. Please stop tagging me or trying to engage me. Platonk (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Bull and Terrier was the progenitor for the SBT / APBT / AST but is not the same breed— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP, do you have any sources that corroborate this statement? As you can see above, multiple quality sources say they are one and the same dogs. Cavalryman (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC).

See http://thestaffordshirebullterrier.co.uk/history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello again IP, I have taken the liberty of moving the link above you added (with this edit) so the conversation makes sense.

Wikipedia only accepts reliable sources which the above website is not. But ... still that website does not state they are separate and even includes this interview with Joe Mallen, considered one of the men pivotal in the breed’s recognition, which states emphatically that Bull and Terrier is just another old name previously used for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC).

OK try this link http://thesbtc.co.uk/breed-info/ the bull and terrier was almost a mongrel until the SBT Club stabilised the look via line breeding in the 1930s and in those days the standard was larger at 18 inches at the withers. Hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

If anything that link endorses this merger, stating the Staffie descends directly from a “cross between the Bulldog and a terrier” not some in between breed. Regardless of what it was called previously (various names including Bull and Terrier) it is now called the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC).

This proposal appears to be attracting lots of personal opinions - no doubt based on dubious websites and references which people have read in their past (it even surprised me!) - but it is not attracting WP:RELIABLE references to support those opinions. "Dwayne" and Platonk do you still maintain your original positions after Cavalryman's comments, please? William Harris (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

William Harris and Cavalryman: Apparently I'm going to have to comment in order to stop the pinging. To both of you, you are asking for a reference and I gave you logic, as did several others. This proposal is 4.5 months old. I see a series of 'oppose' votes and not one other editor supporting the proposal. If you don't have the support of enough other editors after 4.5 months, I'd say the proposal is dead for the time being. That is my two cents. I stopped being interested in this thread four weeks ago, so you can both stop pinging me. Platonk (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT William Harris (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. There is no reason to keep the articles separate when the sources clearly state they are they same thing. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - (excerpt): ...the progenitor of several modern standardised breeds (bull-type terriers), including the Bull Terrier, Miniature Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier. I believe it is important to maintain this article as a stand alone reference because of the various resulting breeds, not just the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Merging it into a single article (breed) may confuse readers into thinking the Staffordshire is the primary resulting cross that led to the development of those other breeds. Atsme 💬 📧 15:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Adding- AKC excerpt from Bull Terrier history: Basically the hybrid of its day, the bull and terrier wasn’t a bona-fide breed. Rather, it was a rough outline, a starting point for several breeds, including the dogs that today we call “pitbulls.” The next section title reads From Bull-and-Terrier to Bull Terrier. 15:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, please can you indicate what the first quote above is an excerpt from? That account of the genesis of the Dogo Argentino contradicts every secondary source I have read on the subject so I doubt its accuracy. Re the second quote, as we have discussed previously the AKC is notoriously unreliable when it comes to breed histories, but as I have explained above [5] when their work is reviewed by a publisher they state these two are one and the same. There are a preponderance of secondary sources that state they are one and the same breed, and that the APBT/AmStaff descend from early British B&Ts/SBTs, some are cited above and here are some more.

The B&T article was created by a notorious sock puppeteer whose socks have received multiple blocks for serious incompetence and disruptive editing, and further have twice been TBANed from editing dog and/or terrier articles (once thanks to you). The B&T article’s sources that actually discuss the breed either date from the 19th century or are self-published rubbish, whilst multiple quality, reliable secondary sources have been provided demonstrating they are one and the same breed, just their current name was adopted in the last century. Cavalryman (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC).

The excerpt is in the lead of the B&t article, (I fixed it above), and it is cited to 5 different sources. If you have the time and energy to verify all those sources, please do. When I was bringing the staffie article to GA status, I did not find any reliable references (beyond anecdotal) that convinced me the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the "original" Bull and terrier, whatever that may be, as it was never standardized/recognized beyond being random results of crossbreeding. See the 2017 DNA analysis in the article which states the following (my bold underline): In 2017, a genome-wide study suggested that all of the bull and terrier–type dogs, including the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, map back to the terriers of Ireland and to origins which date to the period 1860–1870. The timing coincides with historical descriptions of dog fighting contests in Ireland, a lack of accurate stud book documentation, and subsequently, the undocumented crosses of dogs during the time when these breeds were first created. By 1874, in Britain the first Kennel Club Stud Book was published, which included Bull Terriers and Bulldogs. See UKC's description of the Bull terrier. Also see how UKC specifically separates the staffie from other bull and terrier breeds per the following statement in the history section: The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a descendant of the Bull and Terrier crosses made in Great Britain in the late 1700's. It was given the name "Staffordshire" in reference to an area where it was very popular, to differentiate it from the other Bull and Terrier breeds. I'll expand a bit more because the national breed registries do keep historic documentation, and AKC states: It was in the early 1860s that Englishman James Hinks took an old fighting breed, a Bulldog-terrier cross called the Bull-and-Terrier, and refined and standardized it as the modern Bull Terrier. The bottomline is that there are other Bull and terrier descendents and resulting breeds, and it would be inaccurate to merge the Bull and terrier article with the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article, as it leaves the impression that it was simply a name change when that couldn't be further from accurate. I believe that it would serve far more benefit to our readers if we cleaned-up (CE & cite better sources) the Bull and terrier article for accuracy's sake, and kept it as a historic reference - you know, like Homo erectus vs Homo sapiens. Atsme 💬 📧 02:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, thanks for the response. Yes I agree there are a number of other breeds that descend from the B&T, but that doesn't detract from the SBT being the original (under a new name). According to some of the best sources we have been citing in recent years, the history of the B&T is the early history of the SBT. Re the UKC, as has been discussed at WT:DOGS we no longer cite kennel clubs for their breed histories because they contain too many inaccuracies. But ... that AKC quote does not contradict this, the SBT was only given that name in the 1930s, before that it was called the B&T.

This proposal came about because I started collecting sources to rewrite the B&T article and I found most good ones state they are just an early name for the SBT. As far as I can tell the B&T article is just another abysmal SirIsaacBrock/IQ125 creation that cobbles together some contemporary mentions with SBS, SYNTH and OR, and it has been accepted as true until now. Having made this proposal I have deliberately not edited the B&T article that much to avoid accusations of doing so to sway this debate, basically when it happens it will be a case of WP:NUKEIT. But I don't know how to rewrite it and not state they are SBTs, all the good sources say as much, and I honestly don't see how any credible editor can deny it without providing a greater volume of contradictory sources, but they just don't exist. Cavalryman (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC).

With all due respect Cavalryman, ^{clarification 20:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)}generally speaking, when cherrypicking sources to fit a particular narrative, it is not too difficult to make history (and resulting generalities/anecdotal evidence) align with the fallacious belief that all bull and terrier breeds are pit bulls (Staffordshire bull terriers) and should be put down, but I adamently disagree. Just my nickel's worth. Atsme 💬 📧 01:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme: who says I am cherry picking sources and/or advocating the destruction of these dogs? I ask that you retract that statement and/or present sources/some policy based argument to oppose this merger, which you have not done so far. Cavalryman (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC).

An apparent misunderstanding, now clarified in my comment above, as it was a general statement not an accusation. Your accusation that my argument is not policy based is simply not true. My argument is not only policy based, it is supported by RS and verifiable documentation maintained by the KC, a reputable breed registry which satisfies WP:V. In fact, the KC approved the name & recognized the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a breed in 1975 after rejecting the first name submission, "Original Bull Terrier". The "original" Bull Terrier was already recognized as a breed in 1948 whereas the Staffie was recognized 27 years later. Futhermore, the History section of the Bull Terrier states (my bold underline): Today's Bull Terrier is the direct descendant of the original bull-and-terrier crosses made in England, specifically to bait bulls and, later to fight in pits. The breed was standardized in England in the early 1850's by James Hinks. The Staffie article's History section makes no such claim: The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a descendant of the Bull and Terrier crosses made in Great Britain in the late 1700's. It was given the name "Staffordshire" in reference to an area where it was very popular, to differentiate it from the other Bull and Terrier breeds. The Bull Terrier article would be the logical choice for merging, not the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, but again, I oppose a merge, and still maintain my position, with valid reason, to update this article and keep it for historic reference. Atsme 💬 📧 20:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, I accept your word that your comment was not aimed directly at me, but there is an inference in it. Further, there is no benefit in quoting from articles, we don't WP:CITEWIKI.

I have presented some very respected reliable secondary sources that are cited across the encyclopedia (see some here [6][7][8]) and all that has been presented in response is the word of a couple of kennel clubs. I can see there is no turning your opinion here, but I reiterate none of this proposal's opposers have presented any policy based rationale for their opposition. Cavalryman (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC).

Further, the James Beaufoy book which is cited in the article 13 times states The result of the decision to breed more athletic dogs for fighting purposes was the emergence of the so-called 'Bull and Terrier', sometimes referred to as the 'Pit dog'. This is of prime importance in the story of the development of our breed as 150 years later this dog would be recognised by the Kennel Club as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier! Cavalryman (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC).

And a couple of other sources in this article:

• the Caroline Coile piece introduced into the article by you [9], states It [the name pit bull] is a generic designation for several breeds including the American pit bull terrier, which was the first breed registered by the United Kennel Club (UKC) in 1898; its counterpart, the American Staffordshire terrier, which was registered by the American Kennel Club (AKC) in 1936; and the ancestor of both breeds, the Staffordshire bull terrier. (bolding mine). This supports the merger as it says the SBT is the ancestor of all.
• the Walter Fletcher piece, again added by you [10], states His [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier's] ancestors are believed to be the bulldog and English terrier and he was known as the Pit Dog or Pit Bull Terrier. These are other early names for the SBT used alongside the "Bull and Terrier" name both directly above and in other sources cited.

Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC).

References

List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom

Acousmana, I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:BRD. Now, outline why your edit warred in addition adds to this article or it will be removed. Cavalryman (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC).

familiar, you might do well to note: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement...Consider reverting only when necessary." You contend that a link to relevant content (currently missing from the article) is not an improvement. Can you explain your rationale here? The breed has been implicated in 12 widely reported fatalities in the UK alone, and is banned across multiple territories. The only reason I can see for the article failing to mention any of this is that certain editors (most likely specific staff owners who happen to be editors) would rather it wasn't detailed. Acousmana 10:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You linking to that in a section about breed-specific legislation appears to be WP:ADVOCACY, these dogs are not subject to any such legislation in the UK. So yes, I am unconvinced that edit was in any way an improvement. Cavalryman (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC).

Advocacy? interesting, and your evidence for this vacuous charge?

In actuality, objectively, it's quite clear that the article is missing pertinent content relating to:

• a) multiple widely reported fatalities (and not just in the UK).
• b) bans and restrictions in countries including Ireland, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, UAE, as well as Canadian states Manitoba and Ontario, and counties in US states including Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia.

Can you explain why you feel none of this is worthy of mention in the main body of text? And failing inclusion of direct mention, why do feel that links to articles that detail information that directly relates to the subject Staffordshire Bull Terrier should be excluded? Acousmana 11:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes the article acknowledges you above point B, and it acknowledges the UK does not place any such restrictions on the breed. So again, placing this link in a section about breed-specific legislation appears to be advocacy. Cavalryman (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC).

second time you have accused an editor of "advocacy" without evidence.

why do you feel mention of multiple widely reported fatalities (and not just in the UK) should be excluded from the article?

why do you feel mention of bans in multiple territories should be excluded from the article? Acousmana 11:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, you have not explained how linking this list relating to a country that imposes no restrictions on the ownership of this breed has anything to do with BSL, either it is a vacuous addition (to use your word above) or it is advocacy. Cavalryman (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC).

third spurious accusation of advocacy.

bans and restrictions exist in countries including Ireland, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, UAE, as well as Canadian states Manitoba and Ontario, and counties in US states including Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia.

oddly none of this is mentioned in the article, readers instead have to click through to Breed-specific legislation.

following this rationale - in a second instance where an article fails to include notable content that directly relates to the subject - a link to an article detailing multiple instances of fatal attacks attributable to this breed is provided.

this is hardly controversial, it improves the article and makes it more informative. Acousmana 11:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

You still have not explained the relevance of the list you edit warred into the BSL section. These dogs are not subject to any BSL in the UK. Cavalryman (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC).

relevance clearly set out above.

why do you feel mention of multiple widely reported fatalities (and not just in the UK) should be excluded from the article?

why do you feel mention of bans in multiple territories should be excluded from the article?

Acousmana 12:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

No the relevance is not explained anywhere. The breed is not restricted by BSL in the UK so what is the connection between the list and BSL? That is what you edit warred into the article. Cavalryman (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC).

as already explained, relevance to subject is patently clear, your reluctance to acknowledge it appears odd.

"what is the connection between the list and BSL?," as explained above, it includes widely reported instances of SBT fatal attacks, 12 of which were in the UK.

why do you feel mention of bans in multiple territories should be excluded from the article? Acousmana 14:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh please https://www.therealpitbull.com/facts/ The American staffies look similar to American bully but taller and the English staffies have a smile on their face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B105:CEA3:8538:8A78:1D69:A5A5 (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh please yourself! A website called therealpitbull.com with no author nor references fails WP:RS. 182.239.146.186 (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)