From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Dogs / Breeds  (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Dog breeds and species task force.

The bulldog from the new transformers movie[edit]

This dog is a French bulldog and therefore I have removed the reference from the popular culture section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgekwatson (talkcontribs) 03:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

francis from Oliver and Company[edit]

you saw that on disney today too, eh? Gzuckier 23:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation/Bulldog or English Bulldog[edit]

Hello, I think Bulldog should be made a disambiguation page and the bulldog page renamed English Bulldog. Each bulldog breed Category:Bulldog breeds and related webpages could be listed on the disambiguation page. There are many types of bulldogs, it seems unfair to give it to just one breed. The English Bulldog is not really just called a bulldog. WritersCramp 17:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I have arguements both for and against this. But at the moment, im leaning towards "yes". After all, the English Mastiff Is more often simply called "Mastiff" but that name is being used by a page describing the Mastiff group in general.
I would vote to rename the Bulldog "English Bulldog" but i would then turn the bage into a bulldog group page over a disambig. Tekana | Talk 17:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello, glad to see such a quick and definite response. By doing this I do not mean to slight the English Bulldog, I simply believe that stating the are "Bulldog" is really confuses people. Perhaps, an historical perspective of the Bulldog as Tekana suggested would be the most appropriate. I created the Bulldog Categor y, which supports the argument that when you say "Bulldog" is does not necessarily mean English Bulldog. WritersCramp 19:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the English Bulldog and created a separate Bulldog page. There is certainly room for improvement, I won't be offended if you want to embelish it ! WritersCramp 02:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Its good you have said that, because in my opinion, it needs a LOT of embellishing!
First of all, remove everything about bullbaiting, that infomation needs to be in the bull baiting article, not the bulldog article! I am aware that they coincide, and a small paragraph or so should dedicated to it. But at the moment, the page is basically just an article on bull baiting!
It needs a lot mor info on the bulldog breeds in themselves. A few things to include might be:
  • What was the origininal bulldog breed?
  • How have the Bulldog breeds changed over the years?
  • How have the breeds evolved?
  • How popular they are as pets/working dogs?
  • Other uses of bulldog breeds (are they used as assistance dogs? detection dogs?)
  • The reputation of the bulltdog breeds?
  • Charicteristics of the bulldogs in general?
  • What makes a bulldog breed a bulldog breed?
  • Is the original purpose of every bully breed to fight bulls, or were they just named so because of physical or mental likeliness to bulldog breeds?
How about a list of Bulldog breeds?
If you need help, my Talk page isnt going anywhere! Also, you could look at the Mastiff, or the Working dog pages to search for ideas! Tekana | Talk 09:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Ack, ack, ack, this is me waving my arms and jumping up and down.
  1. One response within one day is not difinitive. There are others of us out there who might have opinions.
  2. Moving a page does NOT entail copying the text and pasting it someplace else; that loses all of the history for that page, leaving it behind in wherever it is that it was copied from. There might be a way now for an admin to undo the copy/paste move and then recreate the new bulldog page, but I'm going to have to research it as I don't remember what the process is. In any event, it's work. If you want to move a page to somewhere where there's currently a redirect, you need to ask to have the redir page removed (and explain why) on the appropriate WP page and then actuallY MOVE the original page.
  3. There was in fact intelligent design in why the pages were named what they were. Back in May '04, dog project had a discussion on this topic, and if I could find that discussion, I'd be so happy I'd be waving only one arm instead of both. The gist was that most kennel clubs and breed clubs call the breed "Bulldog"; UKC calls it the "English Bulldog" and I think they're the only major english-speaking club to do so; one other calls it the "British Bulldog". So "Bulldog" is by far the most-common breed name. Still, at the time we *did* have the discussion about where to put the general discussion of bulldog breeds. I'm going to try asking Sannse whether she can put her finger on that discussion, as half an hour of searching on my part doesn't turn it up. I'm hoping that it didn't somehow get deleted when someone was moving pages around at some time, or overwritten by a newbie, or something like that.
Elf | Talk 22:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Elf I did not realize that the copy and the move had destinctive functions. I still believe that the Bulldog page should be a default page for all Bulldog breeds. However, if I am out voted that is okay. If there was a discussion on the Bulldog page it should have been pasted here, so others can find it. Cordially WritersCramp 23:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree about that last bit--it drives me crazy when I can't find stuff like that. I think most of us try to move discussions to the appropriate places, but obviously this one didn't. Sorry I can't refer to that. Elf | Talk 00:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Restarting discussion[edit]

Since no one else has weighed in on this issue and I can't find the original discussion from over a year ago, and the more I think about it, the more I agree with the two of you on how the articles should be organized. I really just wanted to make sure that the page histories stayed with the correct text, and I didn't want to muck too much with moving things around, so this Bulldog/Bulldog breeds split was a quick fix. I know that Bulldog Breeds isn't a consistent article title--it shd be either Bulldog breed (which doesn't make much sense) or List of bulldog breeds (which we already know we don't want--we want (and have) an explanation of what a bulldog is, including a list of bulldog breeds.

So what I'm saying is, following tekana's argument about Mastiff/English Mastiff, OK, I can go for the Bulldog/English Bulldog split. And I can do the move/rename correctly this time, if y'all still want this to be done. Elf | Talk 16:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Bulldog/English Bulldog/Bulldog breeds[edit]

OK, here's what I did to try to get most of the page's history back with the text that goes with it:

  • Created a new page, Bulldog breeds, to hold the generic bulldog article written by WritersCramp.
  • Left this page (already reverted by someone else) as the breed page for the specific breed "Bulldog" and folded in the two small changes (as far as I can tell) made while it was at English Bulldog
  • Turned English Bulldog back into a redirect here.

Now--that does not mean that that's how these pages have to stay. When the naming is decided, we can rearrange the pages with proper moves. If anything needs to be deleted to accomplish that, I can do it. Elf | Talk 20:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The history section is ridiculuous[edit]

I see we repeat here the apocryphal nonsense about this dog being in some way, shape or form descended from bull-baiting dogs, and that the smushy face of modern "bulldogs" somehow served a purpose in bull-baiting.

"Its short and slightly upward facing snout enables it to breathe while keeping hold of the bull, its wrinkles allowed blood to flow away from the dog's eyes and nose, and its thickly-muscled neck and light hind end helped to prevent the thrashing of the bull's head from breaking the dog's spine."

Again, ridiculous.

Its short snout gives it breathing problems even when it is lying down. Its weak jaws mean that latching onto a bull would be impossible. Its odd build means that it is among the most unathletic dogs. This dog does not have blatter problems.

These animals were bred for their comical appearance.

I object to having factoids dressed up in the form of an encylopedia entry.

While this information may be true today, when the breed was used for bull baiting it was not. The breed has changed dramatically over the years. Since bull baiing was banned, enthusiasts of the breed made it more compact with a shorter nose and exaggerated wrinkles. The modern bulldog is nothing like its fighting anscestor. Tekana (O.o) Talk 18:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the history section needs to be edited. The "English Bulldog" did not achieve its present form out of the utility of bullbaiting, the dog was bred to be what it is as a service of fancy. Further, I think we need to be truthful here, the "English Bulldog" is a bastardized product of the Bulldog of the pre-Victorian era and the Pug.
You're right the modern bulldog was bred specifically with the Pug. That's why the pre-Victorian bulldog appears to be far more like a modern (bull)terrier than that of a modern bulldog. The histoy section is pathetic for not mentioning this - it stupidly looks like a mediocre English kennel club advertisement or something. So I edited it a bit - but somebody needs to do a more extensive job of it. Loginigol 11:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, I agree with the idea that the history section needs to be re-written (I'm working on that currently) however the bulldog as it is today, started with the dog being bred for bull-baiting characteristics that have been since been accentuated/exaggerated by selective breeding. So regardless of nay-sayers with little to no knowledge of the breed may think, the dog as it stands is a product of breeding for bull-baiting, but has been exaggerated over the years to what it is now which bears little to no resemblance to the dog initially - that doesn't change it's roots however. I disagree with the statement that the section currently looks like an advert and haven't any evidence as yet that Pug was used to help create the modern animal (however I can't rule that out at present) hence I have removed it until it can be cited correctly (as is standard Wiki policy). However, the dog as it stands did indeed come from bull-baiting stock (that much can and will be proven in the history section as and when I finally complete it, work providing) and the section in question will be updated. Drivenapart 11:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You are the one who haven't provided proof that it was just a product of just bullbaiters and yet you demand proof for Pug? I'm curious which historian is backing you up (besides a possible kennel club that is) Loginigol 12:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As I maintain, you complain about lack of sourcing information yet you put in unsourced information yourself - while I have freely granted that the history section requires a rewrite, inputting further unsourced information by yourself doesn't help the situation. If you'd read what I had said, I'm researching fully and tracing bloodlines of the bulldog right back. I don't work for, and am not affiliated with, any Kennel Club in any capacity whatsoever and am actually using established methods to trace the history correctly. As for what historian, there will be none however this won't be original research rather the bringing together of already available information. Why are you so convinced of a conspiracy? Drivenapart 08:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I sourced my contribution. So you are resorting to lies and deciet when you start claiming something about "lack of sourcing". Do you own Wikipedia? If you don't then you have no right to do what you are doing: deleting sourced information and lying about it. You are acting like as if this is your website or something. This is Wikipedia. You're supposed to challenge the facts - not me. The record shows that the history-section has been looking rubbish for too long. The rest of us have no obligation to wait until you bother yourself to sort out the mess, To my knowledge you are not the owner of Wikipedia. Loginigol 14:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether or not sourced, the information you have put in is equally as debatable as the information there which is why I have removed it (the opening line which says that one sections believes one thing and another believes another is proof of this). So sourced or otherwise, your information is no better than the information that's there already. No, I don't own Wiki, but for that matter neither do you as a result information which is verifiable dubious at best (as is the information you have added, will be removed until correct information can be put in it's place. I have challenged the facts, which is why I have deleted that information you have put in (the sentence says that there is debate over the issue, which means that saying it came from a Pug is not been proved so regardless of referencing it doesn't make any more correct than the information there). And actually we all have a duty to challenge the facts, which is why we end up with a more accurate section. Just out of curiousity what exactly have Ilied about? I have removed information that, althought referenced, says that there is debate over whether it came from a Mastiff or a Pug...there's no lie there. I certainly haven't claimed you lacked sources, I have debated the quality of the information you have put in due to it being questionable and stipulated as being so in the article to which you referenced. If you insist on putting in information then please back it up with unquestionable evidence - we are all together trying to write a better article not crate a war because you're placing information in an article, the author of which states that the facts aren't certain. As a result, I have perfect right to remove said information. If you have a problem with my doing this, I suggest that either we go to a consensus of readers of the article or take it to mediation. Your attitude across articles however suggests that you prefer a more aggressive tack. Drivenapart 14:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


The old english,original and wilkinsons bulldog pages should be merged.

No Merge - these are separate breeds SirIsaacBrock 03:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about merging the "English Bulldog" page with the other ones, considering it is a different breed and its ancestry has already been sufficiently covered; however, I like the idea of merging the Original English Bulldog page with the Wilkinson and American Bulldog pages. The only problem is that such an article would become rather overwhelming.

The Legendary Bulldog[edit]

Anyone acquire this book yet ?? ISBN 1595940324

SirIsaacBrock 10:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


I think that the current mascot section of this article is getting a bit out of control. Anyone have any objection to removing the list and creating a List of Bulldog mascots article instead? - Trysha (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i made the above list, the list here was getting nuts - please add new mascots over there. - Trysha (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that we should do the same for Bulldogs in popular culture. I highly doubt that anyone who's coming to read the encyclopedic entry on Bulldogs is looking specifically for this ever growing loosely referenced list -asmadeus 02:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No one chimed in. I moved the content to List of Bulldogs in popular culture. -asmadeus 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

SPEEDY DELETION (Copyright issues)[edit]

Original page:
Listed for Speedy Deletion due to blatant word for work copyright infringement

I tried re-writing the article on my own at first, to remove the infringing material but keep as much of the article as I could. But almost the entire article is taken word for word from the other site. I know there are alot of bulldog fans out there though, so hopefully it can be re-written from scratch quickly. 00:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I've removed in entirety the infringing material and as such have removed the Speedy Delete tag. Apologies to editors of the WP:DOGS but prompt action was required. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹SpeakSign 03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Reworking temperment section[edit]

I've tried the best I can to arrange it, formalize the tone a bit and eliminate extraneous or redundant information. Any other additions or changes would be helpful. Ri3mannZeta 16:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ri3mannZeta (talkcontribs) 16:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

I've made some additional edits to this section in an effort to clean it up and add structure/decrease its conversational style 20:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding to the bulldog page[edit]

I have been trying to add a link to this page for three days. The link is what - a - bully - bulldogs .com. This website is not just a breeders website. The is a lot of information about the breeding standard and about how to care for bulldogs. The woman who owns What-A-Bully Bulldogs is NOT a commercial breeder. She has maybe one litter a year. She will also give advise to ANYONE who has a bulldog. All they have to do is call or email her. She will help even if the owner of the bulldog did not buy it from her. She will help people find their local Bulldog Club of America. Or if they do not what to buy a dog from her and have it shipped to them, she will help them find a breeder in their area. I have heard a lot of wonderful things about this woman from so many people. Please do not delete this link again.

  • That's nice, but it's not what the 'general information' section is for. It's reserved for websites which offer general Bulldog information ONLY, and not for breeder websites which also happen to have a page or two of breed info stuck on them. Also, Wikipedia has nothing to do with a 'nice breeder' who doesn't mind if people phone or email her. If she creates a web page which is solely devoted to general information on Bulldogs, come back and add it. Frogdogz 09:32, 06 June 2007
  • removed hyperlink from this talk thread. Frogdogz 07:55, 13 June 2007

Why did Winston get removed?[edit]

Under the famous bulldogs section, Winston, the bulldog in "The Longest Day" on Sword beach was removed. Why? Just because someone doesn't catch the reference doesn't give them license to remove it. He was quite the character in the movie and deserves a spot on famous bulldogs list.

Andykass 05:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, after I posted this, it showed up again. I suppose it was either my mistake or my computer not refreshing after several hours. Many apologies! If anyone can confirm that it was Sword beach that would be great. Thanks!

Andykass 05:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Adam Sandler's dogs[edit]

adam sandler's dogs meatball and matzoball were both bulldogs. there are pictures of them on his website. it doesn't say anything about them on his wiki though. Whitey138 19:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hip Dysplasia Question[edit]

I think there should be some disambiguation regarding the hip dysplasia issue. In the UK there is very little hip dysplasia in the breed, however by contrast there are quite a few dogs which have interstitial cysts, which although not as serious can cause the dog discomfort. 26/06/07.

There seems to be an individual who has a passion for posting wrong information regarding this question of hip dysplasi in the breed. I've removed it and corrected it and explained why, many bulldog owners have removed or corrected it, and it reappears. There is not only this misguided person who posts, but a "moderator" who has claimed the page and the wrong information as his or her own and consistently reverts the page to the wrong information. I give up: if you don't understand statistics, you don't get it. And no amount of discussion by people who actually HAVE and RAISE bulldogs -- 100% without hip dysplasia -- is going to fix that. I'll be taking this up with the OFFA, who perhaps will understand that a disclaimer and better review of their statistical publication would make them more credible.

And I thought this was quite accurate: "I object to having factoids dressed up in the form of an encylopedia entry." Allmimsy (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

USMC Mascot changed for accuracy[edit]

The USMC mascot bulldog is erroneously referred to in this article by the name of "Chester". Being named after Lt Col. Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller (The "Chesty" nickname referred to Col. Puller's Physique, not his actual name), I have changed it to the proper "Chesty". 22:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


this was very helpful for my essay thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avgirl001 (talkcontribs) 00:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

OMG DON'T YOU KNOW YOU CANT USE WIKIPEDIA FOR SCHOOL??!?!! tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pete Wentz owns two bulldogs[edit]

Before anyone decides to delete what I posted, Pete Wentz does own another bulldog besides Hemingway. It was shown on The Dog Whisperer. Mokoniki (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Mokoniki

Brad Pitt owns a Bulldog[edit]

I saw it in a magazine. It didn't state the dog's name though. Mokoniki (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Mokoniki

bulldog or Bulldog ?[edit]

The article is not consistent. Sometimes little-b bulldog, sometimes capitalized. Should the word always be capitalized, or not? - Hordaland (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Temperament section[edit]

This section states

The phrase "stubborn as a bulldog" is loosely rooted in fact. They rank 77th out of 79 in Stanley Coren's The Intelligence of Dogs, being of lowest degree working/obedience intelligence.

It is unclear whether the second part is a motivation for the first, or independent. If the former, it is probably flawed: The explanation is likelier the stereotypical bulldog's refusal to give up in fights (e.g. against bulls). If the latter, a motivation should be added. (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do people keep insisting on the "small sample size" argument?[edit]

A sample size of 467 specimens evaluated by the Orthopedic Foundation for animals is not a small sample in statistical terms!!! The british study with only 22 dogs evaluated was a small sample!! The selection bias argument also does not fly. The same selection bias would apply to all breeds evaluated by OFA. yet the bulldog remains the breed where the most cases of hip dysplasia are found!!! This is obviously not the result of chance, folks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altes2009 (talkcontribs) 05:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but 467 dogs IS a small sample that is badly affected by sleection bias because of HOW the data were collected. There are around 250,000 AKC-registerable bulldogs in the US [Data estimated from AKC registration rates, letter from the AKC 2010]. 467 out of a quarter million is a miniscule sample around two-tenths of a percent. That number does not include partbred or owner-identified bulldogs. To flatly say that 75% of the bulldog breed have hip problems based on such a small sample is not credible. A prevelance of 75% for any health condition is very, very high, and as such requires a large sample to make it believable. The hundred thousand Alsations (German Shepherds) tested may be a credible sample. Well under one percent is not.

Selection bias works like this: suppose you tell me that 75% of the people of Bloomington, Minnesota, or Buffalo, NY, or Arlington, Texas, have blue eyes (the prevalence of blue eyes in the US is around one-third. [Source: Wikipedia]). "Ah!" I say. "What was your sample size?" "467." you say. "Well, that is not a small sample in statistical terms!" I say. "What was your research method?" And you say "I personally made a visual evaluation of all 623 people at the Svenkarnasdag Picnic in Minnehaha Park and even given a small uncertainty among those with greenish eyes, I am confident in my sample size."

This is selction bias. People at the Svenkarnasdag picnic are probably mainly of Norwegian ancestry, and Norwegians are quite likely to have blue rather than brown eyes. (You can substitute the German Festival of Buffalo, or the Sauerbraten eats in Texas.) Likewise, bulldogs with hip problems may go to the vet; the vet can report the results to the OPA. There is no effort to survey a relevant portion of the entire bulldog population. Bulldogs without hip problems are not reported. The sample suffers from selection bias. (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be an individual who has a passion for posting wrong information regarding this question of hip dysplasi in the breed. I've removed it and corrected it and explained why, many bulldog owners have removed or corrected it, and it reappears. There is not only this misguided person who posts, but a "moderator" who has claimed the page and the wrong information as his or her own and consistently reverts the page to the wrong information. I give up: if you don't understand statistics, you don't get it. And no amount of discussion by people who actually HAVE and RAISE bulldogs -- 100% without hip dysplasia -- is going to fix that. I'll be taking this up with the OFFA, who perhaps will understand that a disclaimer and better review of their statistical publication would make them more credible.

And I thought this was quite accurate: "I object to having factoids dressed up in the form of an encylopedia entry." Allmimsy (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

While there is certainly selection bias in the OFA sample, it might not affect results the way you think it would. From Canine Hip Dysplasia: The Disease and Its Diagnosis(PDF):
The true prevalence of CHD by breed in the general population is unknown. Most hip registries worldwide permit voluntary submission of hip radiographs. Understandably, this practice encourages prescreening of films such that only the best (most normal-looking) films get submitted for evaluation. The resulting bias in the registry understates the true prevalence of CHD within breeds of pedigreed dogs.
And that is based not just on speculation.
Data suggest that this bias is large and breed dependent. A random sampling of subjectively scored hip radiographs from 200 golden retrievers and 132 rottweilers showed the prevalence of CHD to be 74% and 69%, respectively.3 These figures are 2 to 3 times higher than comparable figures reported in the United States by the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA).
The study referenced states that "Radiographs with normal-appearing hips were 8.2 times as likely to be submitted to the OFA". It is certainly possible that Bulldog breeders/owners are so much more conscientious than golden retrievers and rottweilers breeders/owners that they shift the bias the other way but I wouldn't put my money on it.
We could just add that the OFA numbers are based on voluntary submissions, but personally, I wouldn't mind removing the 73.9% figure and just state that they have the highest incidence rate among all breeds. The more interesting thing that deserves mention is that it is getting worse over time.--Dodo bird (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to the clarification, a sample size of 467 out of a population of 250,000 is statistically significant for a confidence interval of +/-4.5% at a confidence level of 95%. (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Also alot of bulldogs with hip problems are not seen by vets, also alot get to die for other reasons bred into them before they get suffer from the hip deformity bred into them. Most of the people I know who have bulldogs have problems with the hips, even tho they dont like to admit to it.--Thelawlollol (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments about veterinary care costs[edit]

Someone deleted my comments about the significant veterinary costs associated with bulldog ownership, stating that this was "not relevant" to the scope of the article. I think this is very relevant. People contemplating bulldog ownership should be fully aware of the numerous health problems affecting the breed and should be prepared to care for them. Too often dogs are purchased based on fancy, but when problems begin to surface, many are abandoned or taken to the pound. This is extremely irresponsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altes2009 (talkcontribs) 05:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you find sources that back up your claim? It would help since WP:V policy states that claims must have sources. --HighKing (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The Bulldog International Research Center[edit]

I have to say that the theory purposed about the development of the breed on Wikipedia Page is absolutely out from results of my studies mikytully 16:36, 16 sep 2010.

I agree. tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Bulldog Categories on Commons[edit]

I'm curious why the Commons template doesn't link to all the photos with Category: English Bulldog? I recently added a photo on commons and copied the category that seemed most prevalent, i.e. English Bulldog, but the template only seems to link to a subsection of bulldogs. I'm new to adding photos, so I can understand if I missed something or don't understand something. Can anyone enlighten me? Here's the commons image I recently uploaded:

Thanks, Almonroth (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Skin Conditions[edit]

Bulldogs are well known to have chronic skin conditions, particularly in the facial folds and under the tail. Unfortunately, there is very little mentioned on skin conditions under the health section. I am current on the hunt for reliable sources to back up owner experiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDiT755 (talkcontribs) 23:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

British bulldog[edit]

Is anyone seriously suggesting that British Bulldog is not an alternate name for this breed?

The UK Kennel Club describe this breed of dog purely as “ BULLDOG”, nothing before or after its title, but in foreign countries it is commonly known as the English Bulldog or referred to in the press as the ‘British Bulldog’ or the Churchill Dog. - UK Bulldog Breed Council

There are even breed clubs named after the term. THE BRITISH BULLDOG CLUB, THE BRITISH BULLDOG CLUB OF VICTORIA etc. --Dodo bird (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


Yes that would be correct. The name of the dog breed is English bulldog, not British bulldog. The country of origin is England. Not UK, not Great Britain, not Britain. British bulldog would be erroneous. What has happened here is that a few people (including a moderator) has moved in and done mass edits to the article without first discussing it on the talk page. Me and a friend of mine are reverting the article back to its state prior to these mass edits. The mass edits as unconstructive bordering vandalism. They have no grounds for these mass edits and their mass edits are to be reverted until that any concesus has been reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallonen (talkcontribs) 07:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Names often defy logic and simply reflect common usage (there are hundreds of examples, like White rhinoceros has nothing to do with color). A Google books search returns some 2990 hits for "British bulldog" (in different meanings, but many for a dog breed) and 4030 for "English bulldog". Materialscientist (talk) 07:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Vallonen, you're use of "erroneous" in the context of the topic raised is erroneous. I see no reason to disagree that the name of the dog breed is English bulldog (which kind of raises the question as to why the title "Bulldog" is used for the article) but this does not change the fact that the name "British bulldog" IS widely used.
I will repeat the opening question:
Is anyone seriously suggesting that British Bulldog is not an alternate name for this breed?
Clear citations to the use of British bulldog have been given above. More can be given. If Wikipedia is to be encyclopaedic, some reference to such content must be made. If needed a note can be added regarding official and unofficial terminologies or something like that BUT, as anyone can see, the term "British bulldog" is clearly and widely used. Given the topic raised I find the arguments of User talk:Dodo bird and User:Materialscientist to be the ones with validity. Gregkaye (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

In no way does that change the name of the dog breed or its country of origin. What you and others have done is to mass edit the article making changes without first having discussed it on the talk page seeking consensus. When I then reverted the article back to its state prior to that of mass edits you told me that I* should be the one to visit the talk page after having reverted* you lots mass edits. That's clearly wrong; it's the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallonen (talkcontribs) 08:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter who started what (I also came to this article by chance, by vandalism alert), and how long did some text stay in an article - what matters is correct entry in the article. Some authors explicitly state "the Bulldog (commonly, although incorrectly, called the English or British Bulldog)", i.e. both names are misnomers, and I personally won't mind removing them both. Materialscientist (talk) 08:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Look. I came to the article in the very much the same way you did.I restored it to its prior state to that of mass editing which I happen to think now borders that of edit warring. As for the entry of the article it is correct (at time of writing this) If people wish to change it they must first visit the talk page and seek consensus. Not conduct an edit war. That's just not cool. It ain't right either. And it means that since I am reverting the article back to its prior state it will be suggested that I* would be conducting an edit war. Which would be wrong. No one can just move in and make changes to an article like that and then afterwards suggest that the one reverting it back to its prior* state would be the one obligated to take it up on the talk page for making those changes. As for the name "English bulldog" I don't deem that to be a misnomer. The name stem from the dog breeds country of origin, which would be England. This is also made clear in the entry of the article (at time of writing this) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallonen (talkcontribs) 08:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In short, you have two arguments: (i) the article was correct because it was, (ii) the name should follow logic (the country of origin). Both do not apply to names on wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's not dispute that names follow logic and that of country of origin because they often do. Even though I saw two editors who thought to take issue with the dog breeds very country of origin itself. Listing the UK instead of England, the Union* wasn't around in the 15th century.

"British Bulldog" when used as a name for the dog breed, is the result of people not being able to separate "England" from "Britain" (a common issue in general, even within England itself)"English Bulldog" is the more prominent name for the dog breed, both in common usages as well as in books and online. "British Bulldog" is thus an erroneous name when used as a name for the dog breed. The name is used, and should be used, for the game of "British Bulldog". I am therefore of the opinion that the name of "British Bulldog" has no place in the article.

This seem to be the core issue among recent editors you included, at the same time you also let it be known that you wouldn't mind seeing the name of "English Bulldog" go. I don't know if that means that if you, and recent editors, don't get to list the dog breed as "British Bulldog", then the name of "English Bulldog" would have to go as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallonen (talkcontribs) 13:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Basically there are three people supporting a change and one person, in my interpretation, expressing considerable pov. You say: '"British Bulldog" when used as a name for the dog breed, is the result of people not being able to separate "England" from "Britain"'. How do you know what they can and can't separate? A persons right to choose to use the terminologies that they choose to use should not be considered as an indication of disability unless you can prove it as such. You say: 'I am therefore of the opinion that the name of "British Bulldog" has no place in the article.' Opinions don't make for encyclopaedic content. The term "British bulldog" has currency and must be given fair representation. The British Bulldog has a history of being a British national icon and, to my mind, it would be political correctness gone mad, to allow such references to be edited out. Gregkaye (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Britain is the island, England is the country, the dog breed originated in England. Hence "English bulldog" not "British Bulldog". "British bulldog" is the result of people confusing Britain (the island) with England (the country) and England, happens to be the dog breeds country of origin. The English bulldog is used as a mascot to represent England, sometimes also Britain, this is made clear on the page. This does not come down to political correctness. Quote "A persons right to choose to use the terminologies that they choose to use should not be considered as an indication of disability unless you can prove it as such" It has been proven by previous contributors, it has has also been proven by me. If people which to call the dog breed "British Bulldog" they are free to do so, however, that name has no place in the article since it is, as previously pointed out, an erroneous term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I think that you may be confusing mass disagreement with your POV with the idea that large numbers of people that you may never have met are getting things confused. People know what Britain is.
I agree that people are free to chose to call the breed "British Bulldog". They do call the breed "British Bulldog". There is no evidence that I know of to suggest any lack in the abilities of these people to distinguish between countries and islands and you should withdraw your comment on confusion. There is a good standard of geographical education in the UK and, within this context, the term "British bulldog" has had a long and proud history of use. It is in use. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. There should be a connection here. Wikipedia is here to deal in facts and there is no justification for the exclusion of the fact that the term "British bulldog" IS in use. Facts should be given fair coverage here. That's how its meant to work. The geographical difference between countries and islands has no relevance. Wikipedia, being and encyclopaedia, is here to give fair coverage to actual realities. Gregkaye (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: change text of lead to also include British Bulldog[edit]

A simple search on the internet will indicate that the term "British Bulldog" is used and that it has a long history of use. I don't think that the suggestion was made ever made in the text above that the term "British Bulldog" should be used in replacement for "bulldog" only that a legitimate acknowledgement of the historical, cultural and popular use of the term should be made. References to "British Bulldog" have appeared in popular culture to the extent that a related disambiguation page has been required.

At the moment the lead begins:

Bulldog is the name for a breed of dog commonly referred to as the English Bulldog.

The proposal is to change this to:

Bulldog is the name for a breed of dog also called the English Bulldog or British Bulldog.

Gregkaye (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

  • A use of something like:
Bulldog is the name for a breed of dog also called the English Bulldog or, unofficially, British Bulldog.
could alternatively be used, but I would personally like to see some reference to indicate who or what makes commonly used terminologies official or unofficial. Gregkaye (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: change "Other uses" tag to include British Bulldog (disambiguation)[edit]

The proposal is to change the other uses tag to:

{{Other uses|Bulldog (disambiguation)|British Bulldog (disambiguation)}}

so as to present:

It currently gives:

Gregkaye (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

  • As far as I can tell, the alternative used is "British Bulldog"; the DAB page should also reflect this. The FCI standard also states it is the "known as the national dog of Great Britain, and associated throughout the world with British determination and the legendary John Bull." SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)updated to include FCI's statement on history of the breed.

The dog breed is known as the "national dog of England", plenty of sources, not only online and in books but on the page itself. If it comes down to usage (as in numbers) most people use ”English bulldog” as the colloquially & alternative name. Vallonen (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I think the consensus seems to be to include both British and English though? SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
There can be no debate that the breed is known alternately as either the "English" or "British" Bulldog depending on who is asked. Both terms are equally correct. However, simply calling it "Bulldog" is an acceptable and common practice (as indicated by the articles title). Thus in the interest of not picking a POV, simple consistency with the articles titles and less wordy writing the term "English" (and "British") should be omitted prior to "Bulldog" in the bulk of the articles unless a specific requirement for clarity exists. On the issue of "National Animal" I feel it is quite clear that the Bulldog is typically associated with Britain pre-eminently (traditionally due to the perception of Churchill and the United Kingdom's role in the Second World War) with the majority of the association with England being due to the false equivalence between the two entities.
In short; The breed should be referred to throughout as the "Bulldog", but in the opening both "English Bulldog" and "British Bulldog" should be mentioned. The "National Animal" note should read "National animal of Britain". (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I would be ok with that apart from "National animal of Britain" it is "National animal of England" England is the country. Britain is the island. UK is the union located on that island. There's a distinction that needs to be made here.

In short; The breed should be referred to throughout as the "Bulldog", but in the opening both "English Bulldog" and "British Bulldog" should be mentioned. The "National Animal" note should read "National animal of England".

This should satisfy both camps I think. Vallonen (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with the breed being termed "Bulldog" in the general text with the opening sentence in the lead referring to both British and English. The term "National Animal of" only seems to be used in the info box without a ref; the FCI standard (pdf linked in my comment slightly higher up and in the info box) clearly states: ""known as the national dog of Great Britain" so it would be incorrect to state England. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
It's a rather incorrect distinction. The term "Country" simply means a distinct geo-political region. It does not mean anything more significant than that. Both England and the United Kingdom/Britain are "countries" and both also count as "nations" despite overlap between the two entities. However, the United Kingdom is the Sovereign state making it the default entity to refer to. The usage of the Bulldog as the Nation animal of England derives from people (incorrectly) equating or at least approximating England and Britain. Typically the National animal of England is the Lion. For Britain it either the Lion (inherited primarily from England but also from Scotland) or the Bulldog (adopted later as the UK developed a popular image distinct from it's constituent parts). To utilise the less correct application, especially in preference to the most correct one, would be a misleading and dishonest action to take.
For the record; Britain is a term used to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. Britain is the Sovereign state of the majority of the British Isles (most notable exception being the territory of the Republic of Ireland), of which Great Britain is the largest island. England is a region of Great Britain (one with an associated nation). (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record: It doesn't matter that many confuse Britain with England using them interchangeable, which resulted in the erroneous term of “British Bulldog” in the first place. England is a country within Britain, second largest would be Scotland, a country that also tried to secede from the Union.

That aside.

The Bulldog breed originated in England. Not Britain. The Bulldog is thus the “National animal of England” NOT the “National animal of Britain”. England was around way before the act of the Union. England is very much a nation too.

The European Union could become a Sovereign state, that wouldn't' mean it would be correct to then refer to the European Union when making the argument that it is no longer “German Shepard” but “European Sheppard” because Germany is no longer a country but merely a region within Europe.

To recap: The breed should be referred to throughout as the "Bulldog", but in the opening both "English Bulldog" and "British Bulldog" should be mentioned. The "National Animal" note should read "National animal of England". British bulldog is a concession made to help reach consensus and make both camps happy.

You do not seem to be all that interested in reaching consensus, perhaps it would be best if we left the article to read as it reads at time of this post. Vallonen (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

In the context of "National Animal" it does matter whether people are confusing Britain and England (indeed I would argue it matters in most contexts) as it means that sometimes when someone says "national animal of England" they mean "national animal of Britain". England is within Britain thus if something originates within England it originates within Britain. The two are not mutually exclusive. Whether an animal is considered the "national animal" of a country has nothing to do with were said animal originated (take the Lion for England or Unicorn for Scotland as examples) but whether said animal is popularly considered a symbol which may be used to represent a nation (a term which is sometimes used as a substitute for country or sovereign state). I have at no point said the breed should be refereed to as the "British Bulldog" rather than "English Bulldog"; mealy that it is more accurate and appropriate to call it the "National animal of Britain" rather than of England. Your German Shepard point is thus inapplicable.
I do not know why you have concluded that I don't seem interested in reaching a consensus. Indeed; my aim has been to reach a sensible, accurate and NPOV conclusion. I've championed simply using "Bulldog" to avoid picking a side. On the issue of nation animal I firmly believe that "of Britain" is more accurate and more appropriate than "of England". Should there be a consensus that both should be mentioned I would support that assuming a decent why of wording it is used an it reflects the fact the using the Bulldog for England is relatively unusual. (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Vallonen, it is not only a matter of consensus, reliable sources also have to be provided. I have already stated twice above that the FCI terms it "National animal of Great Britain" and provided a link so you may verify it; the The Kennel Club also use exactly the same terminology as shown here ("One of Britain’s oldest indigenous breeds, the Bulldog is known as the National dog of Great Britain"). Do you have reliable sources to show otherwise? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, it is not only a matter of consensus.

That the breed is one of the oldest in Britain doesn't change the fact that it originated in England. After all, England is geographically located in Britain, just like Germany is geographically located in Europe. You take it from there. Do you have a reliable source to show otherwise? As for the terminology we've been over that, the the kennel club they are clearly not making the distinction between Britain and England. We now have the opportunity to do so as well as to reach consensus to prevent an edit war. In any case, I would suggest we give this a week or so to let others join the discussion before we continue. Vallonen (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem confused. We aren't talking about whether it's called the "English Bulldog" or "British Bulldog". Different people and groups you one or the other, many use both. You've already agreed with me that excepting the opening paragraph the breed should be referred to simply as the "Bulldog". The geographic origin of an animal has no baring on whether it's considered the national animal of a country. I doubt that there would be much debate as whether the Bulldog is the UK's nation animal, just as the Lion is England's. On the other hand the Bulldog's status as a national animal of England is at best debatable. Thus the national animal section would ideally simply be "of Britain" or it would mention both but in a why that reflects the non-equal status of the two usages. (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The geographic origin of an animal has no baring on whether it's considered the national animal of a country I never talked about geographical origin, I talked about a country of origin, what I said was that England was geographically located in Britain, that the dog breed originated in England. You take it from there. England is a country. You're still confusing Britain with England and England with Britain, or you're not making the distinction.

You've already agreed with me that excepting the opening paragraph the breed should be referred to simply as the "Bulldog" Look, it already says Bulldog in the opening paragraph, then English bulldog, then other bulldog breeds are listed. It follows logic. What I have agreed to is to remove English bulldog, to only have it say Bulldog. That's where it stands right now. Oh, and you taking issue with the English bulldog being the national animal of England, wanting to first dispute it, to now debate it.

Again, I would suggest we give this a week or so to let others join the discussion before we continue Vallonen (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Vallonen, at the moment I suspect consensus is against you and the present version of the article reflects your opinion. I may have been wrong but I thought you had agreed above that the opening sentence of the lead would include both British and English and the rest of the copy would read simply bulldog. Re: the National dog section in the info box: as I've already indicated, at least two reliable sources categorically state it is the "National dog of Britain". Wikipedia may only reflect what is shown in the sources, so please supply reliable sources stating it is the National dog of England if you wish that wording to be used. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
England's status as a 'country' has no baring on this what so ever. I am very definitely not getting confused between England and Britain, I even posted a short breakdown of what all the terms mean. I am not talking about whether the breed should be referred to as English or British. The UK (Britain) is a country, also a sovereign state making it a more important geo-political entity than England but this is of no consequence to this discussion. I am talking about the status of nation animal; a matter of association, not origin.
With regards to the opening paragraph and how to refer to the breed; you stated how you think it should be by quoting what I had already said. I said that breed should be referred to as the "Bulldog" throughout the artificial but that in the opening paragraph both "English Bulldog" and "British Bulldog" should be mentioned given that they're notably common names for the breed and thus it is important that they're mentioned. Frankly I'm not sure what you're trying to argue at this point other than the undisputed fact that England is a thing that exists.
Consensus seems to be to do precisely what I've already said, indeed what my edits to the article have been doing. From a brief look it seems that prior to you staring to edit this article this was roughly what was already done. If you disagree with the note regarding the breeds status as the national animal of Britain please give your reasoning and/or sources. I'm now going to submit an edit proposal given that on all but this one point there is a pretty clear consensus and on said point their is only your vague objection. I see no need for waiting a week as this is an issue that has been discussed for years and it appears that few, if any, other users have come to support your view in that time. (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about the status of nation animal; a matter of association, not origin

So am I.

But we do have a minor problem here. Britain does not have an official national animal. In truth, neither do England, Scotland or Wales. We do have unofficial though, the Bulldog, the lion, the Unicorn, and the Dragon. Most associate the Bulldog with England, your argument would be to say Britain.

So how do you suggest we proceed? Vallonen (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Vallonen: There are at least two reliable sources which state the Bulldog is the "National dog of Britain"; if there are sources available that state otherwise, please indicate them. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I can't find an authority that states that it is the official national animal of Britain to begin with. However, doing a quick Google search brings up 4 270 000  results for English Bulldog, and 520 000 for British Bulldog. Of course, this is just an indication of association, meaning: more people seem to associate the breed with England rather than with Britain, which also is reflected in the name...English Bulldog.Vallonen (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The Google search technique is not exactly reliable. It gives no indication of context, usage etc. As an example, if we use a Google "News" search (which hopefully would filter out 'noise' and more accurately reflect usage) I get 8,380 results for British Bulldog and 8,080 for English Bulldog. This doesn't reflect association though; rather name prevalence. The national animal is a matter of whether an animal is regarded as a symbol of a country. Such a thing cannot be accurately obtained via a Google search result. I feel I must say again: We are not discussing the name of the breed, that issue has been settled (both "British Bulldog" and "English Bulldog" are valid but "Bulldog" is the one to use throughout the article). If you believe that the Bulldog is the national animal of England but not of Britain, and that the article should present it as such, then make your case. Otherwise the issue is settled. (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
You claim that most associate the Bulldog with England (with the implication that it's not associated with Britain). You do not have any evidence for this, only a claim of personal experience. I personally cannot recall having ever heard or seen the Bulldog used to symbolise England rather than the UK. Sagaciousphil has already provided a source for the Bulldog being the national animal of Britain. The Bulldog's status as a national animal is traditionally associated with Winston Churchill and the role and attitude of the United Kingdom in the Second World War. From this it follows that considering the Bulldog a national animal of England is a consequence of it's status as the national animal of Britain and the unfortunate fact that many people treat Britain and England as-if there were no distinction. For you to argue that we should say in the article that the Bulldog is the national animal of England you would need to show that it is considered such but not the national animal of Britain or that there is a history of it being used to symbolise England (intentionally) distinct from the United Kingdom. To the best of my knowledge there is not and thus we need only, and should only, say that the Bulldog is the national animal of Britain. (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The proposal submitted by IP:  is a bit off imo, another thing I noticed was that the United Kingdom was listed as the dog breeds country of origin in his submitted proposal. That's not accurate. Now, I've been away from wiki for some time and can't remember how to submit a proposal, work load is immense right now and I don't have time to mine around. Else I would have submitted my own proposal of how the article should read. Vallonen (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Changing the lead picture[edit]

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests. The same Editor who took the picture was the same, who also initiated the change, and that would be lobbying for own work and own picture, even if I do understand the creators feelings for liking their own pictures, it’s not a good enough reason. This picture isn't better than the lead picture. And it is slightly under Wikipedia standards, eyes are not open on dog, the frame is too heavy, the back legs can be seen, even if it is a portrait, it doesn't correspond to the criteria pictures acceptable for the article. Please try to take some other pictures of the dog. Hafspajen (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"picture added"
I would still support a change as I don't think that the current picture File:Bulldog standing.JPG is representative of others at: wikimedia Category:English_Bulldog. Options for change could include: File:Bulldog portrait Frank.jpg, File:Charles the English Bulldog.JPG or File:Clyde The Bulldog.jpg with this last option currently being the second picture to appear on the page. I prefer the first option. Gregkaye (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I also support a change of the current picture , I think the new picture is of a higher standard and perhaps its more representative of the breed too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


In the non specialist publication ScreenOS Cookbook on page 815 a text is presented as follows: Before its name became common, the bulldog was known as Bondogge, Bolddogge, and then Banddogge, a name popularised by Shakespeare in Henry VI: “The time when screech owls cry and Banddogges howl and spirits walk and ghosts break up their graves.”

Gregkaye (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The breed today is barely identificable as the bullbog before the destructive breeding undertaken in just 50 years to completely change the breed.--Thelawlollol (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


There is no apparent data to back up the assertion by the UK Bulldog Breed Council that the average lifespan is between 8–10 years. On their web page, they simply state this but give no citation to back this up. As well, they have an interest in positively portraying the breed's health. As a result, their claim should either be removed or noted as only a claim.

There appears to be no citation for the info box lifespan range of 7–12 years. I'll be changing it back to reflect the data from the Kennel Club's 2004 survey. (The 2013 Veterinarian study gives a median death age of 8.4 years and an interquartile range of 3.2–11.3 years at death, but it only has a sample size of 26 Bulldogs whereas the Kennel Club survey is based on 180 Bulldogs). The mean in the Kennel Club survey is 6.4769 years with a standard deviation of 3.58683, which would give a range of 2.89007 to 10.06373 years in which about 68% of Bulldogs' lifespans would fall. If someone wants to go about obtaining an interquartile range for the Kennel Club data, that might be better, but at least basing the lifespan on the mean +/- standard deviation will mean it's supported by some sort of data.

Please do not change the lifespan / longevity statements in the article without including citations pointing to references with actual, substantial data.— (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It was already phrased as what the breed club said. It is useful to contrast claimed lifespan with data-based lifespan. Infobox should read 7 to 10 to cover all three sources. It keeps getting changed by other users. No good reason to exclude other sources from the infobox number. It's not like data based lifespan have no flaws (self-selection, recall bias, right censoring etc). No need to present interquartile range for the UK vet data. It's unnecessary details especially given the small sample. --Dodo bird (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I've changed the infobox lifespan to 6-10. It's more common to use median than mean and the KC survey indicates a median of 6.25.
Based on the available data, 6–10 years is highly inaccurate. There is no data available on the breeders' site backing up their claim. Also, the number of samples in the study on which the 3–10 number was based greatly exceeds that of 2013 Veterinarian study. I'm not aware of a statistically valid way of combining an estimate with no data with a statistical metric. If you want to cover both studies, please use a valid statistical method of combining the metrics from the two studies. A claimed lifespan could be mentioned in the text, but the info box should be based on the best available data, which is the 2004 study and, to a lesser extent, the 2013 study. If you know of specific issues with either study that would cast them in a negative light, please include references to where these specific issues are discussed. There's no good reason to to include a source that has no supporting data and is from one of the groups most likely to want to portray the expected lifespan as higher than it actually is. (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC) (aka N Vale)
Also, it's useful to mention the interquartile range of the 2013 study—we could just say "they give an expected longevity of 3 to 11 years" and not mention that it's specifically an interquartile range. It's very relevant, though, as it provides context for that study's median of 8.4 years, which, on its own, might lead the reader to believe that it's anomalous for Bulldogs to die under the age of 6 or 5. Given the range, it indicates that many can die at or before those ages.N Vale (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox update (2014)[edit]

Because this talk page is quite active and people clearly care about it I wanted to give a full listing of what I did to the infobox so that you can see my reasoning in full. And I hope that they all are suitable but if you hate it the whole thing should be easy to revert.

I started with a clean template of Infobox dog breed. the existing one was a mess and had old tags and mixed up ordering making it a pain to edit. I then looked at each tag in the original and either kept it or changed it as noted below:

  • left picture the same although I really think wikimedia has much better choices available including one of the same dog.
    Another view of the same dog
  • added caption to picture. The other shot from the same dog shows this is clearly a male. Plus a caption makes the infobox flow better.
  • Added an alt desctiption for the image but I would be happy for a more descriptive person to take a stab at that.
  • alt name - spelled them out and seperated by < br > tags as per infobox guidelines. Put them alphabetically
  • country - this had 2 different entries with the former that had a reference not showing because of the latter. I combined them so it appears as if a reference has been added but in fact it was not added by me.
  • weight - Put in ranges that covered all the breed standards as this gives a good idea of the size of dog and the specific breed standards are available.
  • coat - picked words the standards all seemed to agree on.
  • colour - chose over color as this is a British dog. I also changed it in the main part of the article because there were both versions of the word.
  • changed breed standard links for FCI,AKC, ANKC,KCUK as these were dead links or not going to standards.
  • added group and link to breed standard for CKC and UKC as they were not present
  • removed nkc info as it is not supported by the infobox.

| nkcgroup = Non-sporting | nkcstd =

  • removed width as it does not appear to be needed by the infobox

oops - forgot to sign this. Jemmaca (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


Why does Talk:Bulldog/Comments exist? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Very good question; I just discovered a new comment hidden there because I just helped this editor with another dog article concern. Moving it here. Happy I checked to see other edits by this user, Lzjns. Fylbecatulous talk 23:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
(moved from orphan location of sub talk page)
The article has too many statements that are not cited. Lzjns (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bulldog. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bulldog/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Upgraded the article to "Start" class for the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dogs ==

The article needs to be expanded to include a more thorough history. -asmadeus 17:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has too many statements that are not cited. Lzjns (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 10:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Bred to be Deformed[edit]

How about the fact the bulldog in its current force bred and manipulated state is a mess and evil done by dog breeders to get an absurd dog that has been bred to be deformed and the massive amount of problems the enforced changes made over only 50 years has caused. Before then it was not a deformed, genetically inferior or the look the breeders wanted.--Thelawlollol (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This fact has been and is being addressed, albeit slowly by kennel associations and breeding associations. Perhaps the way to approach this is by placing the emphasis on the new standards and new guidelines that are coming into place to improve the quality of live of animals and overall health.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bulldog Page Evaluation[edit]

I am posting an evaluation on this article for a class WikiProject. There were a couple facts referenced without a reference, such as the comment made that "They [Bullogs] can become so attached to home and family, that they will not venture out of the yard without a human companion." This claim is not supported by any sources in this article. Also, I felt that the Bulldog as a mascot section was not relevant to the information in the article. Aside from these two critiques I feel this article was informative and gave a neutral point of view on the Bulldog breed. Madison King (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It may just be the echo chamber of the web but these sites say the same thing' [1][2][3] My personal experience confirms these observations. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

British KC standards[edit]

In the article's "Appearance" section, the breed's UK weight standards are said to be 50 lb (23 kg) for male bulldogs and 40 lb (18 kg) for females. However, the source for this information is a site called "". The british KC standards are actually 55 lb (25 kg) for male bulldogs and 50 lb (23 kg) for females, as is clearly stated on the official site "" which the article also links to in its "Classification / standards" section. Chilistomp (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks, fixed. Unfortunately this is one of the many articles targeted by a long term vandal. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2017[edit]

Breeders should also provide healthy foods such as only dry foods and no treats to avoid complications Eeland3 (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talkcontribs) 20:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bulldog. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)