Talk:Bull Arab/Archive 1

Archive 1

Slant?

Why does a such a short article on this breed prominently feature a picture of a sheep "killed in an attack by Bull Arab dogs," but the Labrador Retreiver page, a much more substantial article, does not contain a picture of famous Labrador Retriever victim Isabelle Dinoire? Similarly, there's no picture of a dead fox in the short article on English Foxhounds.

The inclusion of a "victim" picture appears to stem from bias against this breed of dog. Sailboatd2 (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A cur dog?

What does this article mean when it calls them cur dogs? They don't seem related to the British Cur Dog or the North American Curs, other than, and I think this is what is meant, that this dog and those dogs were all purpose-bred, as tools for some job, and not as pets or to a breed standard. So, in what sense is a Bull Arab a "cur"? Chrisrus (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Evidence

There is no positive identification in any of these cases be it by DNA testing or expert opinion, being of Bull Arab type is not breed identification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.73.211 (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be a fair point to include, and if you have evidence to that effect then feel free to add it. But that isn't grounds to remove well-referenced material that is already in the article. And of course if you can't find evidence for your claim that there was no positive ID, then that can't be included either as per Wp:verifiability. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The onus of proof lies with the accuser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.73.211 (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. As per WP:VERIFIABILITY "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Nothing there about whether the editor is an "accuser" or otherwise. The more important point is that burden of evidence is "satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." Since we have reliable sources that directly supports the material the burden of evidence for inclusion of this material has been met. It should not be removed.

If you can provide references for your claim that there was no positive identification in any of these cases then you can, and should, include it as per WP:VERIFIABILITY: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Note that the policy does not say that at any stage an editor can remove material that is supported by a reliable source.

Please note that as per WP:3RR, if you revert this article again within the next 24 hours, you are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. Mark Marathon (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ref #2 "Ipswich City Council officers seized Thurston and Bowen – classed as an American Staffordshire cross and a bull Arab cross" Verified cross breeds

Ref #3 "believed to be a Bull Arab cross" Verified cross breed

Ref #4 Dead link

Ref #5 Four reported attacks in this report, again no scientific or expert identification referenced

Ref #6 Dead link

Ref #7 Dead link

Had you even looked at the evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.90.148 (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletions

Deletions made to cited facts without any consultation or consensus is very poor wikiquette, particularly when they made such a drastic change in the POV of the article. I welcome constructive changes, and suggestions for collaboration, but please first read or re-read WP:NPOVCgoodwin (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove dead links and unverified sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesJimmycook (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Undo vandalisim — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesJimmycook (talk • contribs) 22:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions and reinstatement of unsourced material

An editor has recently deleted a large amount of sourced material from the temperament section. They have also reinstated a large amount of material that was deleted after being flagged as unsourced for 6 months. Could the editor please explain here why they are doing this. Thank you. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC).

Unexplained deltions and addition of unrefernced material

Ranger1976, can you please explain why you have repeatedly deleted a large amount of well-referenced material on attacks by these dogs, and why you insist on repeatedly adding material that is not referenced at all? Mark Marathon (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Major rewrite

I have given the article a major rewrite, added the available references and have given it a more neutral POV. I have not removed the references about attacks, but have added some references to the NSW Government website which adds some statistical analysis. I have also changed the class to "C". It is statistically important / significant that in the most recent report by the NSW Government that there were nil attacks attributed to this breed versus over 200 attacks identified as being made by say as an example Australian Cattle Dogs which are a far more common breed. AWHS (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read all of WP:RS, but take special note of WP:USERGENERATED. Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. Sites such as "Spartan Bull Arabs", bowwowinsurance.com and Klement Bull Arabs do not meet the standard of a reliable source. They are self-published websites written by people making money out of selling these dogs or accessories for these dogs. There is no evidence that these people concerned have any expertise whatsoever in the field.

Added to that, these webistes have a vested interest in selling the breed. That makes them WP:BIASED sources. That doesn't mean they can't be included as sources of the author's opinion, but we first need evidence that "the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking". There is no evidence that these websites meet that standard.

A reliable source is basically a journal or periodical with editorial oversite, a book published by a reputable publishing house or an edited, official website of an organisation that is itself credible (eg the World Health Organisation). Anything else is highly unlikely to meet the standard sof RS required by Wikipedia. The self-published website of some bloke in Cairns who sells the dogs is never going to pass muster, nor is the website of the "Official" Bull Arab fanciers club.

I would like to to see this article expanded as much as anyone, which is why i trawled all the magazines, journals and newspapers I could find. All that i could find from reliable sources regarding this breed I have added. Unfortunately most of it is negative.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Response to reverts by Mark Marathon

Hello Mark Marathon, I am concerned about your reversion of my edits to this article made on 11 September. I give the article a major rewrite and the version is here [[30]]. I have also changed the class to "C" but now that you have reverted all of my work the article is now back to start class.

I cannot help but notice that you have reverted just about all the edits made by anyone to this article over a period of years including several reverts in the past six months on the following dates:

• 12 September 2015
• 19 July 2015
• 18 July 2015
• 1 July 2015
• 17 June 2015

The edits you made have detracted from the neutrality of this article and I am not convinced that your logic for removing the material as you outlined above is correct.

I am concerned with your approach which is inconsistent with the method wikipedia encourages when there is a dispute over content. If you feel that the article was biased or inaccurate, you should have improved it. This article is entirely salvageable. The approach that you have repeatedly taken over the past year or more with other authors to delete all their text is not the normal wikipedia protocol. For example, if you feel that the article was biased, you should have added balancing material to make the wording more neutral which is what I endeavoured to do. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page. Deleting and / or reverting considerable work by other authors is not helpful.

BOLD editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. I spent a couple of hours editing and endeavouring to improve a page on a subject that I know nothing about. I believe that you were overly zealous at reverting my edits.

As a token of good faith and a demonstration of trying to reach a consensus I have listed my top concerns below so that we can address the key issues one at a time.

I have focussed on eight areas of content below, all of which you reverted.

Second Response to reverts by Mark Marathon

Hello Mark, Can I suggest please that you are taking an extreme position here. I notice from your page that you have a history of having to be blocked so I am going to try and be very civil and polite. This article has real problems that should be and can be solved. Your repeated reverts to almost every edit over a period of years are not helping. My concern with your repeated reverts to this article over a period of time is that you have removed the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Some would say that your repeated edits are in violation of WP:NPOV.

Wikipedia strongly advises to remain civil and calm and keep comments to the point. I have listed eight (8) points above around content which I have asked you to address individually please. Please focus on the content. Your responses really are not helpful and do not address the content.

I added a considerable number of references to this article, which you deleted. If you had concerns with any of those references the correct procedure would be to add a tag to the article or source.

For example for the infobox under WP:QUESTIONABLE. Wikipedia states that Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties but the weight or height of a dog is not contentious and almost certainly falls within the proper use guidelines for such a source. Wikipedia states that a A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim. The typical range of weight for a breed of dog is lightweight. Wikipedia:Applying Reliability Guidelines says that the ultimate criterion being the likelihood that the claim is true.

You have provided no explanation why you reverted items (1), (3), (4) and (6) above. The NSW Government source should not have been reverted. The only reason I can think of why you removed that source was to remove the WP:NPOV.

Item (2) above (Breeders) I agree falls under the category of Wikipedia:Verifiability and at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. If this is the only issue you should not have deleted the other work.

Your comments about self-published material are not strictly speaking correct. This material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. I refer to WP:SELFSOURCE which allows Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

• The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
• It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
• It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
• There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
• The article is not based primarily on such sources.

For this reason the material provided by the expert breeders of this breed can reasonably be used. You should not make decisions like this unilaterally. If you disagree, you should add a tag such as or or . Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. This is not an article that makes exceptional claims: if it was it would require exceptional sources. This does not fall under the category of Wikipedia:Fringe theories either.

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources states that Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia... This should be done on a source by source basis. You have given no justifiable reason why you removed Government and encyclopaedic sources.Wikipedia:Applying Reliability Guidelines says that Whether a source is reliable depends on both the source and the claim, with the ultimate criterion being the likelihood that the claim is true.

Can I sugest that your comment about Animal fancy was ill-considered. One of the defining characteristics is Animal-fancy hobbies include the keeping of animals considered exotic pets. Organizations at any level may combine the features of a breed registry, a fanciers' membership organization, a competition governing body, a trade association, a preservation group, and other categories, and may be nonprofits or commercial enterprises. Similar species-specific clubs exist for various non-domesticated species, e.g. the Golden Conure Society and the American Fancy Rat and Mouse Association. The existence of a Kennel club or a breed club (whichever) is also important but has nothing to do with WP:notability.

As well as I can determine this is a Crossbreed dog or designer dogs which seems to be an umbrella category covering mixed-breed dogs which have been intentionally bred from two or more recognized dog breeds and no dogs with no purebred ancestors, but have not been artificially bred to each other enough to breed true and be recognized as a breed in their own right. That article says Jon Mooallem in The New York Times writes, "Given the roughly 350 inherited disorders littering the dog genome, crossing two purebreds and expanding their gene pools can be 'a phenomenally good idea,' according to one canine geneticist—if it is done conscientiously." That page agrees with your point that crossbreed dogs are not recognized by traditional breed registries, even if both parents are registered purebreds. Breed associations such as the AKC, the UKC, and the CKC, do not recognize designer crosses as dog breeds. That page gives many examples of similar dogs including the Schnoodle, Puggle, Eurohound, Lurcher and the much maligned Labradoodle. My apologies if you are a Labradoodle owner.

There is of course the WP:AFD option. I read the hilarious Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamaskan Dog which many thought was a hoax and the article was initially deleted. This does not fall under that category. In the case of that dog the discussion was interesting, and a key point that was made was that the Tamaskan Dog Register is not a business and do not give a product or service. The same concept applies here, the dog fanciers (as you refer to them) are not businesses, rather clubs of owners. The distinction is important. The result of that debate was delete which was reversed. I suggest that an important point from that discussion was that the existence of breed clubs is important and adds to the encyclopaedic nature of the article. There is vastly more publicly available and notable information about this dog than the Tamaskan Dog.

Unless we can resolve this in a civil way and I can persuade you to withdraw from such an extreme position and can I suggest that this should go to the informal dispute resolution noticeboard.

References

Additional references

After a bit of searching looking for articles, here are some which are clearly reliable, published sources and some which are less so, please select those which pass your very high test / criteria test.

Books

"City Dog Country Dog" by Sally Harding page 86

Positive news stories

• Sunshine Coast Daily

The adorable dogs everyone has forgotten to love

"THEY are the adorable dogs everyone has forgotten to love."

"Bull arabs have a sweet temperament, are highly intelligent and easily trainable."

"Despite their traditional use as a hunting dog, Mrs Whiting said bull arabs made the perfect family pet."

• NT News

Anger erupts after council shoots beloved stray dog "AN avalanche of community outrage has erupted after Darwin council shot a beloved stray dog known as Boy."

• The Morning Bulletin

Sign of the times for Penny the deaf bull arab "I think she will be quite an intelligent dog and if someone puts the time in initially, you will get a lot out of her."

• Sky News

Men find desexing pets 'unmanly' "They (bull arabs) are lovely dogs but not everyone wants a dog that big."

• The Observer

Dogs and cats are looking for a friendly home "an adorable bull arab cross, has worlds of love to offer the right family. She is available for adoption this weekend at Dog Adoption Day."

• Port Stephens Examiner

Exercise essential for Pirate | Pet of the Week "Pet of the Week"

• Nine News

Missing two-year-old found in Queensland bushland "faithful hounds stayed by her side throughout the ordeal and eventually alerted searchers to her location."

• The Age

Dog factions row breeds loads of bad feelings

"the most popular unofficial breeds appears to be one called a bull-Arab, first bred in Queensland 40 years ago."

"The name allegedly came about when a hunter called Mick Hodges crossed a bull terrier bitch with a male doberman called Arab."

AWHS (talk)

Negative news stories

• The Daily Telegraph

Quote "Bull Arab – 4.. attacks between July 1 2005 – November 15 2006

• A Current Affair

Video uploaded to YouTube

• Cairns Post

Bull Arab X Attacked by a crocodile

• The Sunday Times: Perth Now

Owner agrees to have Maya Wicksteed attack dogs put down

• Herald Sun

Dog attack: blame the breed or the owner?

• The Queensland Times

Four sheep dead and 18 injured in dog attack

Expert opinion on temperament

• Vet opinion on their website

Expert opinion on training

• Trainer opinion on their website

Clubs & Dog Fanciers

• Boar Dogs
• Hunting Pig Dogs

Bull Arab Breeders

• Klement
• Warrego

Pet shops with information about the breed

• Up Market Pets

Pet insurance with information about the breed

• Pet Med

Bull Arab Dog Registry

• Bull Arab Registry

Bull Arab Dog Rescue

• Pet Rescue

Dog Obedience

• Dog Obedience

Online dog blogs / information that list the breed with statistical information

• Dog-Learn
• Dog Breed Information
• Spartan Dogs
• Dog Breeds List

Pet Health and Care

• Pet Health

Interesting blogs with commentary about temperament

• Sonja Roseklein
• Bow Hunting
• Essential Baby
• Currant Catahoulas
• ABC News comment

The Haters

• Blog

Suggest that there should be more than enough material here to create a far better article without WP:NPOV.

References

You have removed highly reliable source material

As an example you removed the report by the Division of Local Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet, NSW Government. The report is titled Council Reports of Dog Attacks in NSW 2005/06 - 2009/10 dated May 2011 and I have provided the citation below. There is no doubt that the NSW Government is a highly reliable source so I fail to understand why you removed this reference. This report covers a five year period and analyses thousands of attacks. It is highly relevant to this article that statistically this breed has reported very well by the NSW Government. This breed of dog only had one (1) reported attack over that period which many would regard as an exceptional result. I cannot think of any reason why anyone would remove a published comprehensive report by an Australian State Government containing a detailed statistical analysis of thousands of attacks which portrays this breed of dog in a very good light. The same report is cited on the Australian_Cattle_Dog page which is far less favourable for that breed.

Breeders

I am concerned also that you removed citations and references to leading breeders of which there are only a few in Australia. I am not entirely sure how this would or should be handled by wikipedia but I note that the opinion of leading breeders features prominently on the wikipedia pages for other Australian dogs (of which there are several) and this appears to happen almost universally. I suspect that this is the norm for all dog breeds. Logically - leading breeders are the experts for the breed. They may not publish PhD's on their work but that does not diminish their expertise. I only included one breeder who appeared to write well and knowledgeably here There are other breeders who could also be quoted.

Statistics, dog blogs and characteristics

I was also surprised that you removed the referenced material I added to the dog infobox. The material I provided was consistent with that provided for other breeds of dogs in Australia. For example, the Australian Kelpie dog infobox references a kennel club in NZ and Burke's backyard, a TV show. The blog that I used as a source of statistical heights and weights appeared as professional as any. It is illogical that this material was removed.

If you were offended that I sourced the statistical dog infobox material from a blog, perhaps the following source is more reliable. This website is fairly widely quoted on wikipedia as an authoritative site. It does not matter greatly which site is quoted, they are all consistent. This material should not have been removed.

Popularity and Popular Culture

Popular culture is always topical on wikipedia. Dog popularity is challenging. A quick survey of the top Australian dog breeds indicated that a majority of pages on wikipedia made reference to the popularity of the breed. I found plenty of articles using Google that describe the popularity of dog breeds. They included Cleo, Cosmopolitan and many of the daily newspapers. My thoughts were to select a commercial insurer, being a large professional company that insures dogs and other pets, their determination as to what is a popular or "Top 10" dog appeared to me to carry some weight. AWHS (talk)

Hunting

This breed of dog was originally bred for hunting. Despite the fact that the vast majority of dogs of this breed are now family pets, this history is important to note and capture in an encyclopaedic article on the breed. It is also relevant that there are very few published books on the topic of pig hunting. The only published book I could locate was as you correctly state a self-published american book on "hog hunting".

However in the absence of other published books this is the best available. This is a lot better than say the famous Australian Kangaroo Dog which is a very old and famous breed of Australian dog - I could not find a reference anywhere to help improve that wikipedia page. There appears to be only one blog dedicated to the breed (also used for hunting pigs). And the Koolie only has one online reference that I could find. Given the fact that someone has gone to the effort to write a book about hunting and they mention this dog by breed, this reference seems as good as any.

Temperament and Children

Almost every dog page on wikipedia appears to have a section on temperament or make mention of this characteristic. Most have no reference whatsoever. I found one reasonably good source (albeit a blog). All four of the sources listed below back up the assertion around temperament and children.

Dog Association and Registry

Finally, I don't understand why you deleted the references to material on the associations and registry for this breed. Almost every breed of dog on wikipedia has links to the various associations and registries for each breed. Some are more professional than others. The Australian Pig Doggers & Hunters Association or APDHA was incorporated in 2005. This is a registered association in Queensland. The ASIC number is QLD IA34132. Their web page is of pretty poor quality but this is a registered association with a State Government of Australia and represents the breed.

I also noted in the article that an Australian Bull Arab Registry Inc was formed in 2007 with the objective of legitimising the Bull Arab as a Breed of dog. This is also a registered association in Queensland. The ASIC number is QLD IA35596. In years to come when the breed is registered (I understand that this typically takes about 15 years and they have about 7 years to go), this will gain some significance.

I also included in my edits to the article a reference to the breed rescue group in Australia. The Bull Arabs The Pawfect Companion (BATPC) is an Australia-wide Not for Profit Dog Rescue is the only Bull Arab rescue group in Australia. I concede that I could not find many other rescue groups listed on wikipedia so perhaps this reference could reasonably be removed.

Other news articles

Some of the news articles that you decided to retain are no longer available online and appear not to exist.

I am not going to engage in an edit war; the purpose of the talk page is to open sustained discussion. Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution. This article needs to be dramatically improved and I made a concerted effort to do so which you have totally rejected. AWHS (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

1) Please read WP:OSE. What may appear in other articles has no bearing on what should appear in this article.

2) You have at no point established that any of these breeders have any expertise or that their self-published websites meet WP:RS. Whether your subjective opinion is that the writing is authoritative doesn't change anything.

3) Channel 9 Australia is a reputable broadcaster with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking. If you can find material fro Burke's Backyard or any other Channel 9 show pertaining to bull arabs then it can, of course, be added since it comes from a reliable source.

4) A fanciers club is not a reliable source. Any group of 4 people can incorporate their fancier's club and set up a webpage in three hours. That doesn't make them a a reliable source. If, in years to come, this particular fanciers club gains some significance, it should be included. This year it is not significant.

5) Whether a source is "the best available" is also of little import. If the best available isn't a reliable source, then that just means that we have no reliable sources for the claim, and hence the claim can't be included.

6) Whether a news article is available online is of no importance. All that matters is that it wa soublished and has been cited. You can put in a request for a verification check if you have reason to doubt material that you cannot find online. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Despite the extreme length of your response and your penchant for starting new subjects instead simply replying, you have added nothing new. Aside fromt he rudeness and lack of civility, ther eis nothing ot indicate that any of your sources meet WP:RS. Until you can do that, they can't be included. By all means take it to some dispute resolution forum. i see you have already been shopping this issue around on other users talk pages and have been told that I am right and that these are not reliable sources. Other resolution methods will produce the same result. Self-published webpages and blogs are not reliable sources, much less so when self-published by peopel selling rthe dogs or by the dog's fan club. Good luck with that. Mark Marathon (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Youtube, self-published websites, blogs, self-publsihed websites purporting to sell the only “true” bull arabs, self—published websites criticising and generally slagging off the other websites for not selling “true” bull arabs and a vet surgery's website that mentions the existence of a bull arab cross breed.

Try harder.

The newspapers and ABC are acceptable. The book presumably is, so long as it isn’t self-published.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bull Arab. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706111142/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=458199 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=458199

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of RS material. Unexplained addition of nonRS

Once again, we've seen the same reverts, apparently by the same editors.

Material can not be removed if it reliably sourced. Mentions of the breeds attacks are by far the most common mention in RS publications. It is required to present the general RS coverage of this breed. It is not acceptable to remove this.

Material should not be added if it isn't reliably sourced. Blogs and self published material are not reliable sources except under exceptional circumstances. Those circumstances are not met here. Just because someone breeds dogs, that doesn't qualify them as an expert on the animals history. You may, perhaps, use a breeders webpage as a source of information about how the dogs are bred today, but little else. You may use an owners webpage as a source for their opinion of the breeds temperament, but only if you provide other sources to show that opinion is mainstream. A vet is an expert in treating dogs. They are not experts in anything else. Therefore their self published web pages do not meet RS for claims about breed history or anything else much.

The problem we have here is that there is almost nothing known about this breed. They came into existence from some kind of mastiff with various other ancestry some time in the 20 th century. That is really all anyone knows. So any claim of fact made by anything other than a reliable source is immediately dubious, and thus can't be included. If a vet or breeder is claiming that the breed originated in Lismore in 1937 or that the breed suffers from depression during the full moon, ask yourself how they can know that? They didn't learn it from a textbook in a university library, or we would be using that textbook. They couldn't personally have been there at the time the breed was created and then followed every lineage through. They couldn't follow every dog around at the full moon, or if they did, that was never published and edited to check for reliability. So how can they know? It seems the only way anything is known is through hearsay, anecdote and supposition. Which means that ONLY reliable sources can be used. Even borderline sources that might otherwise be acceptable are unacceptable on a topic with such a paucity of possible sources of information.

The same goes for claims from people who have set up rescue societies that the breed makes a great family pet. How can they know that besides anecdote? That's not RS. We can include a section stating that an unqualified person who loves the breed says that if you want. It is RS for that persons beliefs. But before you start pushing that position, consider that for balance we will need to include all the following:

[The] extreme muscle of this… breed means that, inevitably, some will be used for pig hunting… Reeinforcing the savage traits bred into them decades ago is that some of the dogs that contribute to the breed today are likely to have been used to attack, maul and kill wild pigs….These dogs are identifiable by their extreme muscle and powerful jaws… And so it shouldn’t surprise anyone, least of all their owners, when the breed attacks, mauls and possibly kills any living thing, because to do so is in its breeding.

Newspaper opinion but as valid as an opinion as that of an unqualified breeder on a self published website.

Mr Wicksteed said he wanted dog laws changed to include bull Arab mastiffs as a classified dangerous dog. “They are a killing machine - if a dog can't differentiate between a pig and a little girl, there's an issue,” he said.

Unqualified person speaking in RS newpapers. As valid as unqualified person who set up a rescue organisation.

Bull Arabs are often abandoned at animal shelters , attributed to their use by pig hunters who abandon animals that are not hunting well and because pig hunters never get their animals de-sexed and the litters are often dumped. .

This could actually be included now since it is published in RS newspapers and is the opinion of professional spokepeople for premier animal rescue foundation which itself has been designated RS for Wikipedia uses.

The "breed well known for aggression” This is a Government laws manager in reputable newspaper, so once again, could be included right now.

Personally I don't think we should go down this road for the reasons given above. None of these people have any good source of information for their claims. But if the consensus is to include the beliefs of unqualified breeders and breed lovers, then we definitely need to include the opinions of the RSPCA, council laws officers etc. we need to present a balanced RS view of that breed. And that is overwhelmingly that they are savage and regularly dumped. If we decide to use non RS material in to give the opinion of the general public, the balnce point will be even more extreme.

I don't think thats a course of action we should be taking becuase there is so much misinformation on this breed from all sides. Better to stick strictly to RS material as we have at the moment. But if we step away from that, Wikipedia policy states that we need to keep the article proportional to coverage in the RS. In this case that means newspapers and TV current affairs. Think about that for a moment. We will need to present material on this breed proportional to how they are represented in newspapers and TV current affairs shows. Do you really want to go there? Or should we jsut stick to purely factual RS? Mark Marathon (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Revering of material from The Age

I've re-insated this material. The statement is followed by a sentence which says the largest of such unifficial breeds is the bandog, but the most popular is the bull arab. As such it clearly applies to this breed. Look at it this way: if an RS contained a statement saying "Some breeds are misrepresented as sacage. The largest of these is the Bandog, but the most popular is the Bull Arab.", would you also object? Quite clealy, this specific statement applies to this specific breed. It may also apply to other breeds, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be used here. If you like we can tweak the wording to say it's the kost popular of several breeds advertised voverd in blood. Would that satisfy you? Mark Marathon (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia. I'm afraid in this instance you are incorrect, the article is over a decade old and is about Australian (or Aussie) Bulldogs. The first paragraph you refer to is a generalisation about individual dog breeders (including but not limited to pig hunting dog breeders), the second makes a generic statement about pig hunting dogs but again not linked to any breed, and the third mentions Bull Arabs as appearing (important as it indicates a lack of evidence to substantiate the claim) to be the most popular breed of pig hunting dog in Australia, but in no way links the breed in particular to the preceding paragraph's statement about photographs "often soaked in blood after tearing a pig to bits". Cavalryman V31 (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The age of a reliable source is quite irrelevant, so we won't discuss that. If you insist on claimg its not RS, that can only be resolved on the RS duscussion page. No problem.

The first paragraph is indeed a generalisation about individual dog breeders. It therfore about breeders, just as the article says.

And you seem to want to read every pargraph in isolation here. Is that correct?. Each paragraph contains a standard English linkage, but you claim they are not discussing the same topic, is that correct. Because if so I will obviously need to take this to a third opinion. The English language doesn't work like that.

Just to clarify for other editors, who do you think the "they" in the second paragraph is referring to. Is it referring to the breeders in the first pragraph. The breeders who don't want official recognition. Or do you think it refers to some other group of people, and if so who.

And what do you think the category "such animals" refers to in the third paragraph. Is it the same group of animals in the first pragraph. The group of animals bred by people who don't want official recognition. The only group of animals under discussion? Or do you think it refers to some other group of animals, and if so which group?

Because the way you are parsing this makes no sense to me. It is standard English syntax with standard linking elements. There is a group of people (breeders who don't want official recognition) who breed a group of animals ( pig dogs and the like). They, the group of people, advertise their animals on websites. The most common of such animals, the only animals under discussion, the animals bred by the people who don't want recognition, the animals advertised on websites, is the bull arab.

That is apparently not how you are reading this apparently clear prose. So you need to tell us how you are reafing it. Who does "they" refer to, and whar does "such animals" refer to. Standard English construction says that each statement builds on the preceeding. You are clearly not reading it like that, so you need to explain what you believe "they" and "such animals" refer to so we can evaluate your claims.

I look forward to it.Mark Marathon (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment of looking forward to my response, I don't contribute to Wikipedia for the accolades but it is uplifting when they come. Also thank you for the English tutorial, it is most welcome as I must admit some of your spelling, sentence structure and punctuation above is unfamiliar to me. In this instance I feel the age of the source is relevant, a simple Google search reveals that in fact there is a move by Bull Arab breeders to have the breed recognised. With regard to the "they" you have asked about, "they" are breeders of "of pig dogs and similar types", but not specifically breeders of Bull Arabs. I do see the paragraphs contain standard linkages, but nowhere (even linked) does it say that breeders of Bull Arabs specifically advertise "their animals' prowess with pictures on hunting websites, often soaked in blood after tearing a pig to bits". Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You have neglected to tell us what you believe "such animals" refers to. If it is not such animals as as are referred to in the first paragraph, then what is it referring to? One you do that I can take this to third opinion, since we are clearly not going to get agreement here. As far as I can see, your reading is tortured and incorrect. Thanks. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Mark, you are most welcome. And thank you for clarifying your question, it was beyond me at first reading. If you can produce a reliable source that specifically states breeders of Bull Arabs advertise their dogs "soaked in blood after tearing a pig to bits", not that a breed "appears to be" popular for a specific purpose, then I will be most happy to include it. But as it stands it is inexact editing relying on a (by its own admission on this topic) poorly researched newspaper article. Your commendable efforts to ensure absolute accuracy and standards throughout this article, as evidenced by your many contributions above, cannot be compromised. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Once again, you have neglected to tell us what you believe "such animals" refers to. If it is not such animals as as are referred to in the first paragraph, then what is it referring to? I would like to give you one last opportunity to address this before I take this to another resolution forum. Thanks. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Mark, apologies for the delayed response, the defence of our country makes no allowances for Wikipedians. Such animals are not explicitly Bull Arabs which according to the author only "appears" to a popular pig hunting breed, in an admission by the author of a very poorly researched article on this topic. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverting poor editing

Dear Mark, why did you revert this edit? The page is untidy enough without reverting honest attempts to improve it. I have reverted your edit to allow you the opportunity to include the correct punctuation. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC).

If you wish to corrct punctuation, do so. If you wish to change the staus quo text, you will need to discuss here and gain consensus. If you wish to use commercial puppy farms as sources, that will need to go to the RS noticeboard for a clear decision to reject them, per WP:RS, and you still need consensus. If you wish to argue, as you apparently are, that such commercial sites overrule actual, established RS periodicals, then good luck getting consensus, but you still need it before making changes. WP:RS is quite clear. A shop or puppy farm selling a product is not RS for anything except their own business, per WP:ABOUTSELF. IOW, these puppy farms may be used as RS for the fact that such farms exist. They are not RS for claims about the breeds ancestry. There is no evidence that the authors if these websites have any expertise in the field of dog genealogy, genetics or historical resarch. The claims they make about the animals they sell as product are unsubstantiated and unreliable. This is as riduculous as using Woolworths as a source for the breed history of Hereford cattle, because they sell the product. If you believe otherwise then provide evidence of expert input and editorial oversight of these websites so we can determine that they are RS. You will have to do that anyway if you want them included, SINCE this will go to the RS board and you will need to present that evidence there to get aruling in your favour. I don't believe this evidence exists because I don't velueve these dog farmers have any expertise or that ther is editorial control of their webpages, but I am willing to consider the evidence that you produce to that end.

I would also like to point out that if you continue to fight every addition of RS material that you think reflects badly on tis breed, you will just encourage me to add everything NEGATIVE that I can find in reliable sources. May as well get the fight over and done with. We both know what the popular press has to say about this breed, and it's not flattering. I personally think that the article as its stands is accurate, but we both know that it doesn't accurately reflect what the popular press and various groups with actual experts (eg governemnt animal control officERS, vets, police and so forth) have to say about the breed. We both know that coverage is overwhelmingly negative. I am happy to leave it in approximately its current state, but under WP:DUE we should give balance proportional to press coverage. You know how the article will look if I do that. But if I am going to have to fight you for every additon of negative coverage of breeders, and fight you on such simple issues as whether shops selling a products are RS for the history of that product, then I am not going to do it in dribs and drabs. I will add everything from reliable sources I can find, then we can get community conensus in one fell swoop on what is in and out. I am sure we both know how this afticle will look as a result, but if this is going to be your attitude to anything in this article that reflects badly on the breed or breeders, then I don't have the time or energy to do it any other way. Give it some thought.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Mark, you have failed to answer my question. Why did you revert an uncontroversial attempt to improve the article in accordance with the WP:MOS? I am resigned to the current status quo about the article’s content, but the article as you have left it is an absolute mess, can I suggest you familiarise yourself with MOS:FULLSTOP, MOS:PUNCTSPACE and MOS:PUNCTFOOT to help you in the future? As to your threats, can I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:POV? Can I also suggest you reflect on some of the points in WP:TENDENTIOUS? Again, may I request an answer to the original question? Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC).

I did answer the question. But if you want it in simpler terms, the edits you made are not reliably sourced, and were removed accordingly, per WP:RS. Simple as that. As far as POV, I think you fail to understand the actual coverage of this breed in reliable sources, which is overwhelmingly popular media. It isn't flattering. The article at this point fails to meet NPOV, since by my estimate 90% of RS coverage of this breed is about their agression and attacks on people and livestock, and criticisms of the breeders and owners. This article does not refect that. It is unbalanced. As I said in a prior discussion, I am happy with that because there is so much rubbish published by all sides on this subject, but it actually runs counter to WP:NPOV, specifically WP:BALANCE. If 90% of reliable sources focus on the agression of this breed and the negative bahaviour of owners/breeders, then 90% of the text in this article should do the same, per WP:BALANCE. So if you want to assert that this article fails to meet WP:NPOV, we can go about making it look like that. I personally don't think that would improve the article, but that is the policy we should be followiing. Can I suggest that you consider your constant challenges to RS inclusions in favour of blatantly non-RS commercial websites in light of WP:TENDENTIOUS? Mark Marathon (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Mark, before yesterday, in the last month the only edits I have made to this page have been this one and this one. The first being simple improvements to bring the page closer to the WP:MOS, the second was to a add a reliably sourced statement. Can I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:RS? Also, can I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:CIVIL? Statements like "May as well get the fight over and done with" and "if the only way to get any negative material into the article is to fight, then we may as well get it over and done with" are basically what is described at WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. You continue to deflect with bluster and fail to answer my question, why did you revert my legitimate edits (twice)? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC).

I will answer your question one last time: I have reverted this article to the consensus version because the edirs added were not reliably sourced. That is the answer to your question and that is the third time I gave said so. You can not reinstate material that is not relaibly sourced, and commercial websites are not RS. If you wish to correct punctuation or insert material that is reliably sourced, please do so.Mark Marathon (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Mark, thank you for the response, whilst you have still not answered the question of why you reverted legitimate edits I have chosen to interpret your last sentence as an admission of your error so propose we WP:DROPTHESTICK. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC).

References

Another attempt

I have attempted to make some minor improvements to this article as per MOS:FULLSTOP, MOS:PUNCTSPACE and MOS:PUNCTFOOT. Additionally I have:

• amended a statement using a WP:RS
• removed Template:Refimprove as the article is extraordinarily well referenced and does not meet the instructions for the template
• added the Hunting dogs category as the above WP:RL supports that categorisation
• added Template:Dog-stub as the article meets the threshold of WP:STUB
• moved Template:Australian dogs to the bottom of the page as per directions in WP:NAV

Before any editor summarily reverts this edit, please discuss your reasoning here. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC).

All looks good now. Thanks.Mark Marathon (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

To the IP editor altering the wording used in the source material.

The material you have removed uses the wording in the reliable source cited. It is also standard Australian English idiom. you also have no WP:CONSENSUS to alter the WP:STATUSQUO version of the article. You are also not respecting WP:BRD. Please, to avoid this account being blocked, I urge you to read the linked policies and discuss your changes on this talk page. I can assure you, your edits will NOT remain in the article until you have established consensus to do so, so your behaviour will achieve nothing and will likely result in your IP address being permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mark Marathon (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok.......Did you write this?

" Reeinforcing the savage traits bred into them decades ago is that some of the dogs that contribute to the breed today are likely to have been used to attack, maul and kill wild pigs….These dogs are identifiable by their extreme muscle and powerful jaws… And so it shouldn’t surprise anyone, least of all their owners, when the breed attacks, mauls and possibly kills any living thing, because to do so is in its breeding" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.162.100 (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand you. That text does not appear in tjis article, wiritten by myself or any other editor. Can you please explain how this supports your change of status quo or houw it indicTes the current text is not standard Australian idiom or is not the wording used by the source? Mark Marathon (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It just highlights how little you know of the subject and your bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.162.100 (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I still don't understand you. That text still does not appear in this article, written by myself or any other editor. Can you please explain how this supports your change of status quo or how it indicates the current text is not standard Australian idiom or is not the wording used by the source? I don't claim to know much about this subject, so your asessment that I know lttle may well be accurate. I just claim to know something about what reliable sources sY about this subject, albeit what is a available via Google and Trove. That, too, seems to be very little. But one of the things they do say is that this dog was bred to pull pigs to the ground. I do know a bit about Australian idiom. One of the things I know is that speaking of pushing, pulling or throwing non-flying creatures to the ground is used by every major newspaper and TV news production on a weekly basis. Mark Marathon (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)