Talk:Bedlington Terrier/Archive 1

Archive 1

Photo

I added a photo of a very lamblike Bedlington which I took with a cel-phone. It's not a great picture, but when I get my new 8 mpix camera and that woman brings her dog back in, I'll snap a better one. Maybe someone else can get a better photo of a lamb cut bedlington.

ReignMan 18:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks, Jeri, for checking the page! This talk page is for info about the article; you can see the info for the photo by clicking on the photo to get a larger info and details about the dogs, names, etc. Same thing as clicking here: Image:BedlingtonTerriers_wb.jpg. So I used what you put here to update what was already on the photo's description page. Aren't they lovely dogs! Elf | Talk 03:03, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

NOt a Dog-fighting breed

You've got to be kidding that this breed was ever used specifically for fighting. I'm sure that almost any breed was used by someone for some inane reason for fighting at some time, but I find it very hard to believe that the purpose of this breed was ever for dog fighting. Can you cite references? Elf | Talk 01:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

It was definitely used for dog fighting and I can give a citation, if needed. Please stop following me around the Wiki it is weird. LaLa 02:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Citations are good. Reference sections are good. Elf | Talk 02:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Cited Quote:

These do-all dogs were able to do almost anything asked of them, if in classic terrier manner. In contrast to its placid appearance, Bedlingtons would have to be able hold its own when pitted in dog fighting contests and was particularly well known to fight to the death when set upon.[1] ^ Shaw, Vero. (1879 - 1881). The Classic Encyclopedia of the Dog. ISBN 051743282X

This is from his book published in 1880. The exact quote is not given, nor is the historical context; this does not refer to today's dog. The same author in another book, "The Illustrated Book of the Dog", published the following year (1881), seems to be correcting himself: "The Bedlington has very erroneously been given the character of a savage, headstrong dog..." (pg 118). In 1910, another author ((Robert Leighton, who cites Vero Shaw as a source) wrote that although the Bedlington could be "jealous" of other dogs, "by himself he is perfect. As a companion he is peculiarly affectionate and faithful, and remarkably intelligent; he makes a capital house-dog, is a good guard and is very safe with children." ("Dogs and all about them", 1910, available as part of the Gutenburg Project.)

That was 100 to 120 years ago! Today the Bedlington is described this way: "Calmer and less boisterous than many other terriers, the Bedlington Terrier is known as a dog with a good nature and mild manners."

Describing today's dog as a fighting dog, besides not being true, runs the risk of putting people's pets in danger.

Hafwyn (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations missing, and then some

This article is interesting and readable, but clearly written by someone familiar with the breed aiming the piece at other readers who are familiar with dogs. There are statements casually thrown out that should have proper references (e.g., the section about dog-fighting) as well as a lot of very subjective terms or phrases that would only make sense to someone enthusiastic about this breed or dogs in general. For example, what is meant by "sparkling eyes" (they look like regular dark brown dog eyes to me), or "do-all dogs" (can they pull sleds like huskies? rescue fishermen like Newfoundland dogs? race like greyhounds?). What's a "mincing" gait and how fast is "gallop at great speed" in real terms or compared with any other dog of similar size? "Argumentative and every inch a terrier" is a lovely phrase but it doesn't actually mean anything without some explanation. How are they argumentative? Do they speak? If they were not every inch a terrier, how many inches would be Great Dane or St Bernard? Is this inch-to-breed ratio unusual for terriers? Are most other terriers undersupplied in the percentage of terrier inches they contain?

So instead of breathless adjectives, this article would benefit from line-by-line citations alongside every fact supplied. Don't add a chunk of books at the end without explaining which facts they support. Instead, use the References template and add citations in the text, so readers can verify each fact clearly themselves. For an example, see Halfbeak. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No citation, can it be removed now?

The sock-puppet installed reference to dog fighting Bedlingtons has never been cited. It has nothing to do with today's dog anyway.

Hafwyn (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So what is this about?

Does a reference from the 1800s have anything to do with today's dog? Why are people so attached to the idea of this fluffy pet being a "fighting dog"? The Wikipedia page is reproduced and quoted around the web: is this a platform for someone who wants to get rid of Bedlingtons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.133.27 (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

Spent quite a bit of time today expanding this page, reformatting it, etc. The formatting still isn't the greatest but it works. As far as the use of Bedlingtons in dog fights, they apparently were as this was stated in numerous sources and I have cited it as such. In order to be as complete and accurate as possible it is important that this information is included, even if it does not apply to the modern dog. To compliment this I've also included the small amount of temperament information provided by a few modern books; if anyone has any other information on the temperament of the modern Bedlington I encourage them to add it and cite it.

I also took out a ridiculous chunk on non-shedding dogs and simply left a single cited line about the claim that they are nonshedding - i just thought to link that term to the hypoallergenic or hypoallergenic dog page and I will go do that now. I also felt it appropriate to link the specific dog mentioned in the history section, as winning Crufts and being discussed in LIFE should make him notable enough to warrant an article, even if it does not exist yet.

I am going to continue working on this article tonight and possibly into tomorrow, unless I lose interest. Feel free to jump in and muck with things as I'm working, I welcome the help. I would also like some help expanding the history section; there's a pretty dramatic chunk of time missing (from the late 1800's to 1948, and from there to modern times) and it would be great if that gap could be filled in. --TKK ^{bark !} 23:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bedlington Terrier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, I will review this article. I will leave some comments now, and maybe finish later today, or tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• Perhaps the colour range should be mentioned in the intro?

 Done

• Under history, you might reverse the alignment of the two pictures, since individuals in images should face the text, not away form it, per the manual of style. Then you cna remove the "clear" tag, as the following title won't be affected.

 Done

• There seems to be some link errors under Classification and standards in the infobox.

 Done I couldn't figure out why this was happening, as the .doc links seem to work in other articles, but I switched the link to the same information at a different source and it seems to be working now.

• There are many direct quotes under Temperament which should be attributed in the text, since these are the opinion of some writers, not necessarily fact, and some are a bit far fetched and hyperbolic. "Rather die than succumb"? "When two Bedlington terriers meet only one survives the battle."?

 Done I removed "When two Bedlington terriers meet..." from the article entirely, and clarified the "rather die than succumb".

• The least controversial quoted statements could be paraphrased, rather than quoted.

 Done Or at least, I didn't see anything else

• It is better to attribute a claim directly to a writer than say "it has been said/claimed/argued" and so on. You do this throughout the article, and that should be changed most places.

 Done This is a bad habit of mine. I believe I caught all the instances of this and corrected them.

• The killer mentality of this dog is overstated quite a bit, even though a single last line questions this. Would be nice with some balance.

 Done I've expanded that line into a paragraph, and I can add even more if you'd like.

• When specific people are mentioned, try to give their name, instead of just "a man", "a breeder", etc.

 Done Another bad habit. I believe I fixed all the instances of this.

• The last line under mortality needs a source.

 Done Sourced.

• Is there a reason why there has to be so much white space after the content overview? There is no problem if infoboxes intrude on the text.

 Done I was trying to keep that first image from pinning text between the infobox and itself. The tag has been removed.

• The image of pups[1] has no source or author info, could be replaced by another photo.

 Done Image replaced.

• I think that's it from me so far. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it all looks nice now, passed! FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bedlington Terrier/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.

Bedlingtons should not be listed with fighting dogs. Hafwyn (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Copper Toxicosis

The article currently states "The breed has a high instance of copper toxicosis, but with the exception of eye problems, it is mostly free from health complaints." Copper Toxicosis was common in the past, but much less so today. Most breeders do DNA testing before breeding to prevent this problem from perpetuating. Suggest the article be revised to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencenathan (talk • contribs) 14:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)