Talk:Blue Paul Terrier

Picture Request

Can anyone find a Blue Paul Terrier picture we can use for the Table ? LaLa

Terminology

There's a lot of terminology herein, perhaps obsolete, with which I'm not familiar and can't find in current dog books. I linked them but perhaps they're better translated to modern dog terminology? In particular, "overchanging", "ribbed up", "roached" (is this "arched"?), "haw" (is this "inflamed nictitating membrane" or maybe "turned to one side" (as in gee/haw)?). Elf | Talk 20:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• The only one of those terms that is a bit off is "overchanging". This is a clear error which I have corrected; it was obviously meant to read "overhanging" in reference to the flews. The rest are all still commonly used in the dog fancy and are basically dog breeder/dog show slang, not obsolete and not in need of "modernisation". For a dog to be "well-ribbed-up" means that its ribcage is well-sprung, not too flat or too barrelled, the implication meaning it has plenty of room for good healthy lungs and heart, necessary for an athletic working dog. "Roached" does indeed mean "arched", as in a roached back. This comes from the type of fish called the roach, whose back has a humped/arched shape. While a roach back is a required breed feature in some breeds such as greyhounds, in most breeds the term is used to denote a dog whose back is arched where it should be flat. "Haw" is a term used mainly by North Americans to mean either the third eyelid/nictitating membrane, or the visible inner eyelid in loose-skinned breeds such as the Basset Hound, or both. You seem to have interest in dogs but have no idea of the commonest of terminology. You need to go and educate yourself before you consider editing any articles about canine matters because that level of ignorance is quite surprising. A very quick google search calls up these terms immediately.109.255.208.135 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Poorly-written "rebuttal" section

There is a weird paragraph in this article where someone has clearly got annoyed and spouted a lot of garbled disgruntled rubbish. i.e. "The truth is not as of the above The Blue paul was never a distinct breed that there was a dog dark blue in colour and named Paul is true but this individual was no different to those found the odd time in litters of the Black & Tan terrier(Manchester terrier) the black and tan colouring often throwing out dark blue dogs and some weighing over 30 lbs. This being the reason they never bred true too type. The fanciful ideas of pirates and scotland and dogs still in Ireland is nothing but lies to feed the whims of dreamers." Suggest this be deleted for obvious reasons, possibly to be replaced by a paragraph mentioning that some people have a different viewpoint.109.255.208.135 (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is hardly garbled disgruntled rubbish There is within this paragraph the only factual evidence of the dogs reported in News archives and books.

"There is a weird paragraph in this article where someone has clearly got annoyed and spouted a lot of garbled disgruntled rubbish". where is your evidence. "Suggest this be deleted for obvious reasons, possibly to be replaced by a paragraph mentioning that some people have a different viewpoint". So you would have us read a fabled document but remove actual factual evidence.

These obvious reasons would you care to elaborate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallacy65 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 

Uhm...

Quite interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.132.200 (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

rebuttal section

After careful research it appears that the section that was removed is the only factual evidence in the article. Fallacy65 (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

May 2018

Hi, I reverted the BPT article for now. You deleted a lot of cited information that was relevant to the article. I do not mind if you want to help improve the article, so let's work together to make it better. We can use the article talk page to discuss, if you wish. Take Care, IQ125 (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor IQ125:, I have copied your message to me here as this is the appropriate place to discuss page content. Please specify exactly what page content you believe I removed with this edit, because I believe I just reorganised the same content into a more encyclopaedic form. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, there appears to be information deleted by you when you were formatting. Please check again. Thank you IQ125 (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor IQ125: I have checked, please outline what appears to have been deleted. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC).

To editor IQ125: after receiving no response to the above and seeing you have been active elsewhere on Wikipedia, I have reinstated my previous edits. I have also added some additional information from other sources. These two changes negate the requirement for both page issues tags.

If there is information you feel has been removed, simply add it to the page or discuss it here as opposed to wholesale reversion of attempts to improve the page. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC).

Genuine edit?

IQ125, please can you confirm if this edit is genuine? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC).

Having reviewed the history this page I have determined the above edit was bogus, so I have removed that source. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC).

M. Homan's A Complete History of Fighting Dogs

Hello Blockhouse321, I notice you have recently added M. Homan's A Complete History of Fighting Dogs as a reference to the lead of this article. What specifically are you citing from that source? As you can see from the above section, that book was used as a bogus source to cite the entire page by a very sub-standard editor who was subsequently topic banned from editing any articles about terriers and was afterwards blocked for an amateurish attempt at sock puppetry. Cavalryman (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

It is a notable book, have you read Chapter 19...it has a lot of information devoted to the Blue Paul Terrier. Actually, the whole book is well written and laid out with much information including citations. Blockhouse321 (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

AfD was requested - don't just nuke it

This article may well require some work, some trimming or to have it's material subsumed elsewhere but I was puzzled by aspects of the recent PROD. "Of the 2 sources cited, one is dated 1861"? In what way does that invalidate it or even diminish its value? The dog's rarity, extinction doubtful origin or existence, appear to actively be aspects of note about the dog, being covered in the given sources. There's evident support for at least some of the article's content. It was dePRODed as there was "enough here to merit full discussion at AfD" but instead the proposer returned to just turn it straight into a redirect. That would seem somewhat uncooperative. Please discuss this, as requested. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The only work this article needs is to be deleted or redirected to bull and terrier because there is simply no verifiable documentation in published existence that corroborates such a breed actually existed beyond rumor and speculation which clearly fails WP:V, and that includes the fringe speculative claims by the 2 cited doggy book authors, one of which barely gave it 2 paragraphs in his book (Harris). I certainly did not expect resistance over an article that was clearly worthy of a PROD, and at the very least, a redirect. I'm surprised that (1) it passed AfC, but then it probably didn't originate there, and (2) was recently checked as reviewed by NPP. I also don't doubt for one minute that the notorious sock puppeteer will continue creating havoc with our dog articles, which is another reason we should delete their fictitious work. Atsme 💬 📧 12:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Per my post at your AfD, sources being added by a disruptive editor should alert one to check them but they should judged by their own merits or demerits, not of the editor who added them. What is your basis for discounting these sources, for calling them rumour, fringe and speculative? If you have no basis for discounting the sources and they are reliably noting the existence of speculative claims of such a breed (Meyrick though states it is genuine, I don't know what Harris says), that itself is of note. You did not expect resistance but you got it, so have some respect for that. Instead, foiled in your initial move, you effectively unilaterally blanked it anyway! That is jawdroppingly disrespectful and disruptive. If you have a good argument, and it needs to be better than the above (elaborated WP:IDL), you will gain consensus. Have some patience. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

First of all, stop the PAs, secondly read WP:GNG and WP:V - this article fails both - it actually should have been a CSD. Atsme 💬 📧 16:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If you are referring to criticism of questionable actions, that is neither personal nor an attack. It could hardly be left uncommented upon and in the first instance, to call it just "somewhat uncooperative" is pretty conciliatory. I was more matter-of-fact when you doubled down and it's still not a personal attack. Did your action show respect to the dePRODder? Did it show the opposite? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@ Mutt Lunker. Please stop your antagonistic attitude. We shall get on if the temperature is lowered significantly. Otherwise, go away.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Characterising a failure to co-operate with a reasonable request from another user, with an undiscussed, unilateral action running directly counter to it, as "somewhat unco-operative"? When the justification was "I certainly did not expect resistance", elaborating as to what was unco-operative about the actions and as to how that was disrespectful? I see I didn't note the user's repeated reversing of the reviewed status of this article (though possibly more baffling/pointless than disruptive). Reasonably drawing attention to such behaviour is antagonistic? These actions are not a desirable substitute for allowing a discussion to run its course here or the AfD.

Could you clarify as to what typographical correction was being addressed regarding my choice to have two paragraphs?

Telling other editors to go away?

A moderation of your own thermostat may be worthwhile. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Lunker, it's time to WP:LETITGO. You may not realize it, but you have been arguing against what the sources say relative to the dog's unknown pedigree, or the fact that it's name and breed are based on a myth. In fact, the author of one of the sources you cited believes the dog is simply a different color of Black and Tan Terrier, and both are extinct, dating back to the 1800s. The AfD is in process – let consensus decide. Gareth Griffith-Jones, if you have time, we need more editors weighing in at the AfD. Atsme 💬 📧 20:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

"Lunker"? Charming. I'm sure you'd love people to let it go rather than call out your actions. You still seem to be perpetutating the line that I believe a) this dog is a pedigree breed and that b) that is a basis for the retention of the article, despite me laying it out in black and white umpteen times that this is neither the case, nor the basis of my argument. How you could still be labouring under those misapprehensions is utterly beyond me. Do it yet again and I'll regard it is deliberate misrepresentation. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Provide the diffs that clearly state your case and the basis of your argument so that there is no misunderstanding. Atsme 💬 📧 22:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but your position appears to be, essentially, that the article should be deleted because the dog is not, a breed. You appear to have convinced yourself that my challenge to your AfD that is on the grounds that I do think it is a breed. I am saying that it being a breed or otherwise is not pertinent as to whether it should be deleted or not. My posts on the matter are all here or at the AfD and they are not particularly long. If you re-read them without that misapprehension, you'll be fine. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

If you'll just read WP:GNG without misapprehension, you'll understand my position. An extinct dog that one author considers a "fable", and other authors don't know what to consider it at all, is not notable - there are millions of mixed breeds and designer breeds just like it. We don't keep stand-alone articles about mutts, Heinz57 mixtures and non-notable mixed breeds with no pedigrees. If you still don't get it, I highly recommend that you attend WP:NPPSCHOOL for a better understanding of the process – you might even pick up some good habits, although as long as you've been editing WP, you should already know GNG inside and out. Atsme 💬 📧 02:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

If this is your understanding of GNG and you are an advert for NPPSCHOOL, I'll be taking a wide berth thanks. Wikipedia doesn't cover non-notable anything. Conversely it does cover any notable subject that is covered in reliable sources, whatever that subject may be and whatever they say about that subject, including the notably questionable nature of its existence - as attested in the sources for this article. The discussions of the dubious nature of the subject seem specifically worthy of note.

As this thread has largely or entirely been superseded by the subsequent AfD discussion, I'd suggest that we terminate it and confine any further discussions to the AfD. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)