Talk:Old English Bulldog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Dogs
Dogs Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Dog breeds task force
 This article is within the scope of the Dog breeds task force.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Contents

[edit] Clarification

The Old English Bulldog is a distinct breed of dog that once existed and flourished. No breed has ever replaced it. This article should not be merged with any other article. I have cleaned up the article based on the latest Bulldog books and theories. The article is accurate. Please feel free to expand it but ensure you have done your research first. Thank you Battlefield 23:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC) First of all if this breed existed ,the three dogs were not probably the last old english bull dog generation becuase for there to be bulldogs i've seen at the SPCA the bloodline must still exist.

[edit] The breed lives on

First, the statement concering the dogs size is incorrect. 16 inches and 45 pounds is small even for today's bastardized pug-product. There is no way a dog under 50 pounds, however tenacious, could have survived the swipes of a bear and the slams of a bull. No, the dog must have weighed closer to, but probably not exceeding, 100 pounds. There should also be clarrification as to what generation of Bulldog is the subject here. The bulldog of the Elizabethan era would have been more athletic and multi-purpose. Certainly used for baiting and combat, but baiting and combat of a variety of beasts. Utilitarian functions were also of demand in that era. Bulldogs were farm equipment more than entertainers, peasants more than professional pugilists. It makes sense that dogs served practical roles before the Industrial Revolution. One should remember too that distinctions between Mastiffs and bulldogs were only just appearing in print, circa the 1600's. It wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that the English bulldog became specialized (changing from small to capital "B"), serving only a concentrated role. When one looks at British history it is evident why the adaptation of the breed for purpose of roles and formation occured.


During the period of American colinazation, many settlers sojourned the Atlantic accompanied by their bulldogs. The tasks ahead would require hard work - labour's only reward was survival. The American South was then, even more than it is now, heavily forrested and alive with predators and prey. Forced to live with nature, the settlers were dependant on their bulldogs who were capable of dealing with these beasts. The bulldog brought by the settlers would have been of a more utilitarian variety; Leggy and athletic, used to running and working bulls more than for torturing them. The bulldog would have survived as a protector of property and life, even at the expense of his own. Generations of settlers found themselves in conditions that those back in England would have thought were lost to antiquity. This preserved the bulldog. His function persisted and in fact expanded. While there's a clear semblance between all the Bulldogs, the American Bulldog, which is leggier than he from the early Victorian era, has the exact appearance of the Elizabethan one.

Arguably, today's true-bulldogs (American Bulldogs) breed more true to form than any generation of true-bulldog ever did. While different "types" of American Bulldog have recently emerged, different types of bulldog have always existed. Also, it is important to note that many breeders by insistance or circumstance breed only the "Old Country White" type. Many American Bulldog owners, whether their bulldog is Classic, Old Country, Johnson, hybrid, etc., can present specimens identical to Crib and Rosa (dogs from the Industrial Revolution who were fairly leggy). It's possible that, at different points in time, other dog breeds were introduced into AB lines. It is completely untrue, however, that the AB is a constructed breed with a fabricated geneology.

As an aside, I think John D. Johnson has done something interesting with his Bully type. The dog was bred from smaller bulldogs, but now is almost the size of a Mastiff. From this and information from reputable sources, it's probably not a stretch to imagine that Mastiffs, up until the 1600's-1700's looked more like his dog - and not like brindled, short-hair St. Bernards.

The bottom line is the "Old English Bulldog" is extinct, their genetics are lost. There are many varieties of Bulldogs, some look similiar to the OEB, but are not the same genetics. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you misread what I wrote. The breed was taken to America. Just because fanciers in England changed the dogs there and because true English Bulldogs in America existed only in small, isolated regions, that doesn't mean the genetics are lost. Are Greyhounds in America (or anywhere outside of England, for that matter)not Greyhounds? It's illogical to say the Bulldog of England is extinct on these grounds - the only ones the argument for extinction can stand on.

Furthermore, what is this "OEB" anyway? Define it. Is it the bulldog of 1820, 1600, 1250, 100 BC? Again, the dog was never really bred to form and its role was always changing. If you insist on the OEB as the dog of England's Industrial era, the one used specifically to bait bulls, then yes, that dog is extinct. But the Labrador Retriever, the dog that brings back water fowl, must be on the brink of extinction as well.

Why would people take none bulldog breeds to create the Olde English Bulldogge, why wouldn't they just track down Old English Bulldog pedigrees and breed them ?? They are not able too, because the OED is extinct. My last words on the matter. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 04:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terriers or not

Let's try to avoid any further revert wars here. If there is are explicit citations that terriers were mixed into the breed, please list them here so that other editors can verify the information. Thanks. Elf | Talk 17:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As it states in the article, Terriers were crossed with the Old English Bulldog LATER creating a new breed called the Bull and Terrier. Terriers were not part of the base to create the Bulldog. Thank you for getting involved SirIsaacBrock 22:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extinction

At least according to the extinction pages referenced, it doesn't seem that Dog breed can, by definition, be extinct ("extinction is the cessation of existence of a species or group of taxa, reducing biodiversity"). --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 08:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please address my question; stating "The breed is extinct." is not a sufficient answer. The word "extinction" in the scientific sense, which is how the word is treated in the extinction article this page links to, refers to a species. Dog breeds are not species, so it follows that the "old english bulldog" breed could not be extinct.

Furthermore, where is the harm in stating that the factual accuracy is disputed (which is the only change to the article -- I did not remove the "extinction" references)? The factual accuracy is disputed. Please remove the tag only after the dispute is resolved.--Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 07:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section removed

I removed the following section as being functionally indistinguishable from an advertisement. If it goes back in, it needs aggressive cleanup in line with WP:MOS. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The British Bulldogge is the brain child of accoomplished bulldogge breeder Tim Kelly. Tim is one of the best known Bulldogge Breeders in the United States and Britain and can be considered a true Bulldogge Man. Tim Kelly of Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, USA, is the founder of the Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club, a member of the group of associated breeders in connection with the recreation of the modern bulldogge breed out out of Pennsylvania and Massachusettes, and the founder of the British Bulldogge Kennel Club. He has been instrumental in the continued development of the Bulldogge breed. Mr. Kelly has been breeding a strain of Bulldogge referred to as the British Bulldogge, which is similar to all of the modern recreations of the Old English Bulldog but is very stictly engineered toward the development of a non-aggressive temperament. The British Bulldogge, first and foremost, is a family pet, as opposed to other modern bulldog breeders who breed guard and protection animals as well as weight-pulling dogs, with specific attention given to maintaining aggression.

The temperaments of the British Bulldogges are calm, loving and happy. They are true and sound bulldogges that have been painstakingly bred for overall health, longevity, the removal of any and all genetic diseases, and the unshaking standard that aggression not be tolerated in the breed.

Although Mr. Kelly realizes there will always be a need for the aggressive guard dogs, in the performance of business, property, and personal protection, he is a strong and outspoken proponent that such dogs are not for dissemination within the general population, should never end up in the hands of families (which can never end with anything but very bad results), and that such animals should only be handled by security dog experts.

Modern British Bulldogge. Example of the recreation of the now extinct Old English Bulldog breed.
Modern British Bulldogge. Example of the recreation of the now extinct Old English Bulldog breed.

The British Bulldogge has been bred to be a somewhat larger version of the English Bulldog, but is much healthier and much better looking. The fact that this dog is a family pet, first and foremost, cannot be overstated.

In order for anyone to be a British Bulldogge breeder, one must go through a strict process and be committed to the mission of the British Bulldogge Kennel Club. British Bulldogge breeders must promote the dog as a family member first and foremost and must not be associated with protection or security dog breeding in any connection to British Bulldogges whatsoever. British Bulldogge breeders must be on board with the main objective of the British Bulldogge Kennel Club... which is always to breed for temperament first!!

According to Mr. Kelly, "It’s a hard thing to cut a fabulous dog from your breeding programme... but if it is an aggressive dog, then it has no place in the British Bulldogge breed."

The perfect British Bulldogge must be of medium size and smooth coat with heavy thick-set, massive body. Mature male dogs weigh about 70 pounds. Mature female dogs weigh about 60 pounds. A large head for its body, wide shoulders and sturdy limbs. The appearance and attitude should suggest great stability, vigor and strength. The disposition should be equable and kind, resolute and courageous.

[edit] Copy edit

Could I clarify that in my edit summary I used the phrase "copy edit" to denote adjusting the tone away from an advertisement towards a formal encyclopedia article. The phrase doesn't usually imply that information was incorrect. Thanks, Addhoc 12:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Leavitt

The founding breeder David Leavitt is a veterinarian he researched, chose and bred only the finest dogs from each breed to create the Olde English Bulldogge the entry is correct and factual. Dr. Leavitt isn't a Backyard breeder as you seem to be implying. 12:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


David Leavitt never was and is NOT a Doctor nor a veterinarian. This is bogus information. In fact, the man doesn't even havea college degree. whoever poste this is grossly mistaken. The title of this page should actually be "Bulldog of Old". The current title is too closely related to todays current breed "Olde English Bulldogge" (Don Pelon (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC))


That isn't what I meant. My concern is that phrases such as "the finest dogs" and "well-researched" are similar to those used in adverts. I'm not attempting to modify the factual information, merely to rephrase. Addhoc 12:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution (proposed policy) may be quite relevant to this discussion. Keesiewonder 12:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Keesiewonder, I've added a {{fact}} tag. Could we possibly rephrase to saying the breed was founded by veterinarian David Leavitt and then not include the disputed phrases? In addition to Wikipedia:Attribution (and the policies it combines WP:V and WP:OR), could I suggest you have a look at WP:PEACOCK? Addhoc 12:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the reference. However, I would suggest that according to the advice of WP:PEACOCK you shouldn't rephrase "developed for cattle at Ohio State University" with "well-researched" or rephrase "all breeding stock have had hip x-rays" with the "healthiest"... Addhoc 13:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not a peacock term if it is factually correct. Please re-read the citation provided in the article. Headphonos 13:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not every correct fact deserves a spot in an article on Wikipedia, though. Please do read Wikipedia:Attribution, WP:V and WP:OR with your article in mind. Keesiewonder 14:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did it exist?

I have not seen any evidence that this dog existed or went extinct. We have photos of what appear to be Stafforshire type dogs which are also called bulldogs, but where is the verifiable information. Breeders have a tendency to invent romantic histories of dogs to sell puppies. Wikipedia should not be here to further such.--Counsel 01:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

buy book and read then pls come back and contribute Headphonos 03:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Floridan/Counsel, I have found it is very confusing for someone to understand the relationship between all the various bulldogs [1] throughout history and in today's times. It would be nice if we could sort this out someday somewhere in the Wikipedia articles. Keesiewonder 11:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The request for verifiable citations was reverted and only circular reasoning was given. The one citation provided is to a website written by the very breeder who invented these dogs. Even he claims that he based the dogs on old paintings and sculptures. Hardly a reliable method for claiming that a distict dog existed and then went extinct.--Counsel 17:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

--Counsel 04:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Believe me, I know what you mean ... Check out my user contributions and/or talk pages. Keesiewonder 22:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a great many more citations. Like the saying goes "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". As I see it there is largely one source for this information and that is a person who breeds these dogs for sale. Statements like "Historians are fairly confident that the Old English Bulldog is derived from ancient war dogs, such as, the old Mastiff or Alaunt." Are uncited, and that is only a concern once we get past the weasal words. Claims about the breeding of the jaws for work are just silly. If such a build were helpful we would see dogs like blue heelers bred for these characteristics as they are still used for cattle work.--Counsel 04:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
take a look at this article http://www.terrierman.com/rosettestoruin.htm

Understood; I support your perspective, Floridan/Counsel. Let me know if there is something you'd like me to do to help. Keesiewonder talk 10:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please go to your library and take out the books in the "Reference" section. In addition, read the external links at the bottom of the page. Another technique is a "key word" search at Amazon.com for "Old English Bulldog", here is the output it got - Amazon citation search a total of 48 citations. Headphonos 11:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Having a reference list at the bottom of the article is a nice start. However, it is common practice to also provide in-text citations. If those are asked for by another editor such as Floridan/Counsel, then they should be put in by advocates of the article and proponents for keeping the article. Removing well intended tags placed by others may be interpreted as inappropriate and will catch the attention of administrators in general and members of the dog projects on Wikipedia in general. Please insert in-text citations (including a page number) for the key facts mentioned in the article. If you have the books in the reference section, it should be a rather easy albeit tedious task. Keesiewonder talk 12:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do u own the books ? I do... Have you read the external links ? I have... get the point ? ... I do ! Headphonos 12:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do get the point, thank you. More material is here. It sounds like you have the reference and refuse to enter in-text citations with page numbers to your references. Why is that? Keesiewonder talk 12:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a seemingly well researched site which argues that Crib and Rosa are depictions of the same dog as the modern Pit Bull. http://www.nyx.net/~mbur/apbtfaqover.html This entry, which Headphones seems intent to guard like a pit bull, makes it seem that the issue is settled and there is some sort of consensus that a separate "breed" existed that does not exist today.--Counsel 19:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed tag

This article contains a number of unlikely and inherently difficult to verify claims. It is not a tenable position to simply state "it is in the reference books". The citations should allow editors to go to book and page to verify.--Counsel 19:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you do not have the books and clearly you know nothing about bulldogs, so why don't you let people that have the knowledge contribute. Find a topic you have knowledge about and contribute to those articles or go to your local library, take out some books on a topic of your interest and come back after you know something. Bye ! Headphonos 03:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Headphones, take a look at WP:LEAD. This introduction does not fit the Wikipedia guidlines and what does "for all intents and purposes extinct" mean anyway. In addition to not being compliant with wikipedia guidlines, it is nonsense. Here are some other principles you should be mindful of:


  • Ownership of Articles:
"Some contributors feel very possessive about material ... they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia."[2]
  • Revert:
"Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it."[3]
  • Citing Sources:
"Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor. ... All items used to verify information in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are generally not included in "Further reading" or "External links". However, if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it here as well. This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic."[4]
  • Reliable Sources:
"Using reliable sources assures the reader that what is being presented meets the Wikipedia standards for verifiability, originality, and neutrality. Accurate citation allows the reader to go to those sources and gives appropriate credit to the author of the work.... If all the sources for a given statement or topic are of low reliability, this suggests to the reader that the content be treated with a degree of skepticism, and to the editor that the material may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.... Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion can always be considered reliable." [5]
  • Neutral Point of View:
"All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source ... As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.... NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source ... Assert facts ... A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Wikipedia, and then cite that source."[6]

--Counsel 04:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • If the tags are removed again without the concerns implied by two (not one) other editors addressed, I suggest anyone reading this read and implement WP:DR. Floridan/Counsel has placed the tags, with good reason, several times - each time they have been removed without any significant change in the article. I support the placement of the tag and would like to see the proponents of the article make efforts to implement the suggestions provided. If that cannot be done, then let's pursue the next step on WP:DR ... before this all catches someone's attention ... and we have another AfD. Keesiewonder talk 12:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you get off your petard and do it yourself ? Headphonos 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So, shall we go with Dispute Resolution or AfD? There are now at least 4 users who want the tags placed, and the one user with the information is not improving the article. Keesiewonder talk 02:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sticking my nose in (probably where it doesn't belong; I'm an aircraft guy, not a dog guy!), mainly because of issues over at WP:Air that we've had with the one user. If you don't believe there's legitimate reason for the article, AfD would be a good idea, but there's also a 3rd alternative I'd suggest, maybe an easier option: consider the removal of legitimate templates to be vandalism, warn the user (he's been warned before!), and if he continues, simply seek a block. Akradecki 04:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Do not waste time with an AfD nomination. This article is a valid wikipedia entry, it wont get deleted because of its poor quality, it just fall short in quality but is a notable subject (a breed of recently extinct dog). Lets improve it, trying to find some citations... The {{Fact}} tag should be placed in many places to help would-be editors in correcting/improving the article rather than keeping only the general tags at the top of the article. Regards Loudenvier 20:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whole Cloth

It is articles like this that make wikipedia a widely questioned resource. Most of the information in this article is speculation that is simply unknowable. Just because it is on a breeder's website and helps to sell pups does not make it a valid history.


[edit] "Genetics from this breed are extinct"

This statement should be removed. I removed it once but within a day or two it was put back. Anyone with even a modest background in biology or genetics would find it clumsy and imprecise. First of all the word "Genetics" refers to an area of scientific and academic study. It is not something that can be "extinct" (any more than Math or Physics can be "extinct"). I guess the writer means that the genes that made up the breed are extinct - however this is incorrect as well. The genes that made up the breed are alive and well in various combinations in its descendent breeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.155.168.178 (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The genetics are extinct, that is why they have to take several breeds in an attempt to reincarnate the breed. The genetics that make up the Old English Bulldog are gone forever. Chessy999 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)