Talk:Mongrel

Hybrid vigor

The phrase 'hybrid vigor' was linked to 'hybrid'; I changed it to the more accurate 'heterosis' and expanded that stub. I realize that although heterosis is the correct term, (Webster's Collegiate still refers 'hybrid vigor' to 'heterosis') hybrid vigor is probbly the more familiar one. I bolded 'hybrid vigor' in the stub; is this sufficient to have it show up in the search engines? Anyone have another idea?

You forgot to sign again, Quill. :-) You'll get used to it. What you did is perfect so far; google *should* find that page (and the Mutt page) when you search for "hybrid vigor", although I tried it just now and it didn't seem to find the Mutt page, and it's had this text for quite a while. (There's definitely a delay of days to weeks.) I'd be inclined to also create an article titled "hybrid vigor" and make it a redirect to heterosis. To make an article into redirect, in case you hadn't already figured it out, type

#REDIRECT [[desired article name]] 

Elf | Talk 02:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

um...um...okay, well, maybe I can figure it out. I'll give it a go in a couple of days--I'll be out in the country tomorrow, far from the nearest computer. I think that's a good thing.... Quill 11:19, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) (I signed it!!)

What the--?!

Is this what happens when an article gets nominated for 'feature article'? All kinds of unsubstantiated information gets thrown in? Interesting information gets tossed out?

This now needs a lot of help. Quill 00:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was pretty blown away, too. I did a bunch of work and also some bandaging on things I didn't get to--e.g., changed "most pet experts" to "some pet experts" but in fact there are a whole lot of issues involved in whether someone gets a mixed breed or purebred and I don't particularly like this statement at all. The whole dog sports thing got completely misconstrued somehow during someone's rewrite and I have my eye on that for later tonight. I've been trying to update it to correct the info, replace some stuff that was good that vanished, and add more info that's useful (& correct) but I don't have a lot of time right now. Elf | Talk 00:56, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Understood. If I don't go out of town, I'll help as well--or when I get back. Quill 01:37, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Heinz 57--Not just ketchup!

People have twice changed this article to say that the "57 varieties" slogan is about Heinz ketchup. It's not! (wasn't, actually, since I don't think they use it any more) And it was intended particularly to forestall people thinking that they had only one product, which seems to be what's going on here. In fact, which products it refers to isn't relevant to this article at all and I'd rather leave the text as "the slogan of the HJ Heinz company", which is accurate and relevant. But now I'll change it to "H. J. Heinz company's condiments and relishes," which makes it sound even LESS relevant but at least it's accurate. Argh. No, I'm not going to do it, I'm just going to remove ketchup again. Elf | Talk 01:35, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, I agree, just remove it. Will keep watching--ketchup out. Quill 01:48, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

After this has been modified yet again (latest removed "57"), I've linked it to a new disambig page and listed some external web sites and stuff like that. Maybe people will leave the company, the name, & the slogan alone--I am just overwhelmed with despair that so many people have never heard of the slogan! How could this be??? Elf | Talk 20:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I explained why I removed the "57" in my comment after it had been put back in. The joke goes as follows:

Moe: What kind of dog is that?

Joe: He's a Heinz.

Moe: I never heard of that breed.

Joe: 57 varieties.

All laugh. Maybe this should be a quotation.

And, the slogan is a reference to 57 varieties of pickle, not relish, not condiments, just pickles. Heinz used to give out little pickle pins with a 57 on them. They had a lot of kinds of pickles and they thought "57" sounded like a good number, although the actual count varied. I am overwhelmed with despair that no one seems to know this, you know. Now I guess I have to go and fix the disambiguation page too. Busy busy busy. Ortolan88 00:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oops, I was wrong, it was relishes and condiments as well as pickles. Never hurts to look things up, even late. But I did understand the reference, FWIW Ortolan88 00:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) PS Hope I didn't leave a sour dill taste in your mouth and that you will relish my mistake.

Don't worry, it just takes some people a little longer to ketchup than others. OK, if you have a straight man, you can run your routine as indicated above, but most people don't (including books & web sites), so they just use "Heinz 57" straight up. Elf | Talk 22:58, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Feists

Yes, sometimes small mixed-breed dogs, but also a breed type, if I'm not mistaken. Quill 21:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, see UKC Curs and Feists page. I've been pondering what to do about that and not feeling ambitious. Elf | Talk 22:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well I never heard that, but it doesn't seem that Feists and Curs are breeds in the sense that, say, King Charles Spaniels or Bichon Frises are breeds. If I knew more about it, I might add to this article something like, "not all dog fanciers are obsessed with bloodlines. Breeds of hunting dogs in the South virtually boast of their mixed heritage and go by such names as Treeing Feists and Black Mouth Curs", but as I say, I don't know anything about it. The United Kennel Club looks pretty interesting too. Ortolan88 00:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 18:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Rename Article: Offensive Term

Mongrel is a very offensive term--at least in the US. I propose removing it from the article title at least. I'd be amenable to a note later on its continued usage of the term in parts of the Commonwealth could be noted later on.

As an American, I have limited understanding of other varieties of English. I've done some quick googling to see how commonly it is said now in the UK. On some language forums, it seems like some people are insistent it is still okay to use though I can't tell whether that is currently true or if some people are holding onto language that is no longer as widely acceptable. For what it's worth, I also searched some rescue organizations based in the UK, and they don't generally use the term on their websites--they seem to favor "mutt".

I wanted to get consensus on this change, seeing as this was last discussed 17 years ago: Talk:Mongrel/Archive 1#Derogatory meaning What do people think? Dauntbares (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

This move discussion is more helpful to link. The article was originally Mutt, then was moved to Mixed-breed, then a move discussion determined it should be moved to Mongrel. (I'm also American, but didn't realize that anyone considered the word "mongrel" for a dog "very offensive".) Schazjmd (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful link. I should note the move discussion is 13 years old. I think the culture has shifted since then, especially after some of the language reforms we've had in the US after the George Floyd protests of 2020.

I should clarify that "mongrel" is an indirectly offensive term for a dog in that it brings to mind the racial slur. It's like using the word "bitch" to refer to a female dog. I'll grant that you can find scientific papers that use the word "mongrel" but not "bitch", but I would suggest that "mongrel" is, at least partially, a skunked term in the US.

Our modern conception of dog breeding dates back to emerging nationalist, genetic discourse of the Victorian era , and there is long troubled history of the language of dog breeding being used to express racial fears and advocate for racist laws. Dauntbares (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

You should really fact-check your claims before writing them https://avmajournals.avma.org/view/journals/javma/263/2/javma.24.06.0405.xml

Mongrel is the common name and we are not concerned (WP:NOTCENSORED) with whether it may be construed as offensive by some, we have far more offensive titles and articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

You're right that I was wrong about the use of the word "bitch" in scientific papers. I forgot to check that. The rest of what I've written is well substantiated.

WP:NOTCENSORED is not about the use of slurs in articles--see WP:SLURS. I can name a bunch of curse words that do have other meanings--but I can't find a Wikipedia article where a word that is a slur is the title of an article not talking about its pejorative meaning. Though "bitch" may appear in scientific articles (fair point), bitch points to a disambiguation page--the first entry of which is bitch (slang). See also 1, 2, 3 (disambiguation page).

The only counterexample I found was midget--importantly, the first sentence of that article acknowledges the fact that some people consider it a pejorative.

Given a choice between "mutt", "mixed-breed", and "mongrel" for the title of the article, the first two are much more polite terms. Dauntbares (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:SLURS is an essay, its an editor's opinion rather than accepted practice.

There are plenty of examples that show otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=intitle%3A%22Nigger%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=intitle%3A%22Chink%22&ns0=1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=intitle%3A%22Negro%22&ns0=1

Mutt and mixed-breed would also be considered offensive when used to describe a person, so I don't see how a title change ultimately solves the problem. See euphemism treadmill. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair point that WP:SLURS is an essay and not policy. I shared it as "persuasive authority" because the official policy doesn't anticipate or describe slurs as offensive content. It has to do with the removal of offensive material and content--preferring a different term for the title of the article is not censoring or removing offensive content. It's just renaming the title to use a more palatable word.

I'm not sure the searches you provided prove your point. Your first search just shows that there are some articles that have the n-word in the title when it is unavoidable (like when it's the name of an organization), but it also shows some articles use redirection tastefully to catch search terms that might not be appropriate for the official title of the article. For example, searching for "n-word toe" yields results, but the name of the article is "Brazil nuts". The article itself briefly mentions the historical slang term that has fallen out of favor.

Can I ask why you are resistant to this change? Is "mongrel" the word you are used to using for dogs? I think I'm more interested in a discussion about how the word is used and understood and less so a discussion of Wikipedia policy (that could become wikilawyering). I think we can all agree to limit the use of slurs in the titles of Wikipedia articles. I think the big question is whether "mutt", "mongrel", "mixed-breed" is the best word for a title.

"Mutt" and "mixed-breed" would be offensive terms to apply to a person, but I would suggest they are not as offensive nor as readily perceived as a slur (when heard out of context).

The OED defines the noun form of "mongrel" as "The offspring or result of cross-breeding, interracial relationships, etc. (offensive with reference to people)." The first sub definition (I.1) pertains to dogs, and the second sub definition (I.2) says "offensive and chiefly derogatory. A person of mixed descent; a person whose parents are of different nationalities." The OED defines the adjective similarly, but importantly its first sub definition (I.1) is the "offensive and chiefly derogatory" meaning applied to mixed-race people.

The OED provides a primary definition of "mutt" as (1.a) "derogatory. A racehorse, esp. a slow one." and (1.b) "A dog, esp. a mongrel." It does provide later negative or derogatory definitions: (2) "a fool" and (3) "derogatory. An unattractive woman." These are uncommon uses of the word "mutt". As an aside, it traces the etymology of "mutt" to a shortening of the word "muttonhead" meaning "a dull or stupid person".

Similar to "mongrel", the OED defines "mixed breed" as "A cross-bred animal; a person of mixed race offensive."

I interpret these definitions as suggesting "mongrel" has a racial and pejorative valence that "mutt" does not. "Mutt" seems to primarily refer to a dog of mixed breed or unknown ancestry--just like a generic dog without breed specific characteristics. My experience is mostly limited to American English where "mutt" is almost the exclusive term, but I suspect this influence is spreading to other parts of the world. For example, the 2025 Dog's Trust National Dog Survey prefers the term "mutt", saying "And our most-loved mutt… a marvellous mixture. That’s right, crossbreeds make up 42% of all pooches, with 9% of the nation's dogs being mystery mixes." Dauntbares (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Because mongrel is the common term, mutt is a disambiguation page, and 'mixed-breed' is incorrect as it is based on an idea of dog genetics that are largely untrue. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

You keep on saying "mongrel is the common term". I don't think it is. Certainly not in the US, and I think mutt is becoming more popular worldwide. I think this is because "mongrel" has a racist connotation that "mutt" doesn't have.

Furthermore, for the title of the article, if two terms are synonymous in a context, we should use the less racist one. I don't feel like you've responded to any of my research. Dauntbares (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

In addition to the already provided evidence

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Mongrel+dog%2Cmutt+dog%2Cmixed-breed+dog&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22mongrel%22+veterinary&btnG=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22mutt%22+veterinary&btnG= (far more false positives here than mongrel)

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22mixed-breed+dog%22+veterinary&btnG= Traumnovelle (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

1) The term used in academic papers is not necessarily the common term. Scientific terms can be considered inappropriate or outdated in common language (see Jargon). I'm more interested in what words are used in popular writing or everyday speech.

2) The first link doesn't prove much because "mutt dog" is not an expression. "Mutt" is primarily used as a standalone noun.

3) I have repeatedly made the point about the racist connotation of "mongrel" which does not nearly exist to the same extent for "mutt". This is my primary reason for changing the title, but I don't feel like you've responded to that. See also: Dauntbares (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Well here is the New York Times which has a similar number of hits despite mutt having far more false positives.

>2) The first link doesn't prove much because "mutt dog" is not an expression. "Mutt" is primarily used as a standalone noun.

So is mongrel, but if you include just 'mutt' on its own there are far too many false positives for the ngrams to provide any useful data.

>This is my primary reason for changing the title, but I don't feel like you've responded to that

Because I already said why I think such a change would be superfluous. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

1) "mutt" is rarely used as an adjective meaning mixed-breed, so much so the OED doesn't list "mutt" as an adjective with that meaning. It's meaningless to compare "mongrel dog" with "mutt dog".

2) "Mongrel" is an antiquated term. The NYT search you ran includes results for "mongrel" from as far back as 1924 just on the first page. Word usage has changed a lot since 1924--one big reason being that 1924 was a far more racist time. In Virginia in 1924, they passed the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 which explicitly banned interracial marriage to prevent the "quagmire of mongrelization." This racist discourse using language from the world of dog-breeding is well documented, and one of the big reasons why "mongrel" has fallen out of favor.

If you limit the NYT search to articles after 1950--the prohibition on interracial marriage wasn't abolished in Virginia until 1967--a much different picture emerges. "Mongrel" yields around 150 results. "Mutt" yields around 800 results.

If you try to estimate the number of false positives, 8/10 of the first page of results for "mongrel" are false positives, most of them dealing with mixed-race people and cultures. 150*(2/10) = 30 estimated results for "mongrel" meaning a mixed-breed dog. For "mutt", 4/9 of the results on the first page are false positives, most of them being the name of a show or album. 800*(5/9) = 444 estimated results for "mutt". That's an order of magnitude bigger.

One could do a similar analysis of the The Times, which a quick a google suggests is the closest British equivalent of the NYT. "Mongrel" yields a maximum of around 200 results since 1950 with 5/9 false positives -> 89 results. "Mutt" yields on average around 150 results (it varies upon refresh) since 1950 with 1/9 false positives -> 133 results. To be fair, this might be an undercount of false positives for "mutt" because a lot of the results are dog puns, e.g. "Dogs on school bus is a mutt watch for millions.", and, "mutt" seems to often used as a stand-in for a generic dog rather than specifically a mixed-breed dog.

Still, I think this shows that "mutt" is a more popular and common word at least on both sides of the pond. It seems to refer more exclusively to dogs with a more contemporary resonance for lovers of all dogs, regardless of breed, and it seems to be less offensive word, more appropriate for light-hearted jokes and album titles.

3) The evidence you've provided thus far has exclusively been search hits without any in-depth quantitative analysis or qualitative review of word meaning or context. Simply calling a proposed change to replace unsavory language with a well-documented racist connotation "superfluous" without really engaging with the evidence I've put forward is not enough. Dauntbares (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Is there consensus for changing the article title from "Mongrel" to "Mutt"? Dauntbares (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

The only opinion other than yours is Traumnovelle's and they object to the move. You could try WP:3O to get more input. Schazjmd (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I just listed this disagreement on the page. Dauntbares (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has brought up WP:NOTCENSORED Mr Fink (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It was brought up before, so I don't want to belabor my point. I'm just calling for a shift from an offensive term to a less offensive term. It's not about removing content; it's about changing the title of the article to a more common term. I'm suggesting "mongrel" is not used in the US and is used less and less globally because of its offensive connotation. Dauntbares (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I initially came here as WP:3O had this discussion listed. Come to find a third editor has arrived. So my comment is really unncessary. That said this appears to fall within WP:RM#CM. When I first hear the word that is the page name of this article, my mind first went to Mongols Motorcycle Club. That said, the more common term I hear about dogs of two different breeds creating an offspring I think of Mutt. It can be argued that a dog whose parentage is of two pure breed dogs, or is of a mixed breed is the primary usage of the word mutt, and that this page can be moved back to mutt, and the disambuation page, can be moved to Mutt (disambiguation). That said, before that occurs, please start the WP:RM#CM process to build consensus as to what occurs with this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 20:22, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I'm new to some Wikipedia processes. I hope I filled it out correctly. Dauntbares (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 20 May 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is no consensus to move. Participants cited WP:NOTCENSORED and the lack of a clear primary topic. Mutt (dog) was suggested, but did not receive sufficient support either. (closed by non-admin page mover) — 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

---

• Mongrel → Mutt
• Mutt → Mutt (disambiguation)Mutt (disambiguation)

– "Mongrel" is a derogotary term for mixed-race people. In the US, it is rarely used to refer to dogs for this reason, and I believe it is used less and less worldwide similarly because of its use in racist discourse. Multiple people have suggested that this change would violate WP:NOTCENSORED, but this is just about changing the title of the article to a commonly used, readily understood, and more palatable word worldwide: "mutt". The goal is not to scrub the word "mongrel" from this page but rather to find a more appropriate, widely understood word as the title. Please see the previous discussions for more context on this disputed request: Talk:Mongrel#Rename Article: Offensive Term, Talk:Mongrel/Archive 1#Derogatory meaning, Talk:Mongrel/Archive_1#Move_to_"Mongrel". Dauntbares (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above discussion and WP:NOTCENSORED. We are not considered whether the title may be construed as offensive but rather what name is more common, and mongrel is far more common than mutt. the intentions are in good faith but ultimately what ever term you use to describe a dog of mixed ancestry, it will become an insult, much like bitch, cow, pig, goat, sheep, rat, and chicken, all appropriate animal terms that are used as insults. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Traumnovelle 1) You keep on asserting "mongrel is far more common than mutt" without much evidence. I think I've debunked this, so I encourage people to review previous discussions on this point. I think this might be a quirk of the particular variety of English you are used to.

  2) Your discussions of offensiveness drift towards hypotheticals in a way that I think is unfair. "Mongrel" has a well documented history of racism. It is not comparable to the word "cow" or "pig". While maybe in 100 years "mutt" may become an unusably offensive word, so far it hasn't been more offensive than mongrel nor is it today. The goal is to find the best title for the time being with an understanding that language shifts over time and articles may need to be revised over time. Dauntbares (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

  How are their links to Google Scholar not much evidence? Where did you debunk that? --Joy (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  I made the effort to go into the earlier discussion, which was tedious :) but more importantly it wasn't really that helpful for the purposes of this discussion. Here, the matter of how to call the dog-specific article overlaps with the matter of what is the best way to navigate readers who land at the base title of "mutt" or "Mutt".

  Per WP:DPT, we can have a look at e.g.:

  • WikiNav clickstreams for mutt and see how we could only identify 319 outgoing clicks to the dog topic from there, compared to 1k viewers. There were another 260 identifiable outgoing clicks to other topics, and 227 filtered (anonymized) outgoing clicks. Those kinds of statistics are not indicative of there being a primary topic by usage for the term mutt.
  • We also see in all-time mass views that a biography of Mutt Lange has historically higher readership. This seemed curious to me so I went and double-checked that with all-time monthly views of these topics and indeed that seems consistent. The biography title was apparently changed in 2024 so we should also look at the earlier views under the previous title, and those were even higher. When even a single biography attracts so much more readership than a general topic over an extended period of time, that doesn't help the idea that readers strongly associate the term with just the general topic, and it doesn't really help the idea that the more general topic provides so much more educational value for the readers that we should consider it a primary topic.

  --Joy (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Also, why not consider moving the article to mutt (dog) to solve the original issue? --Joy (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm amenable to "mutt (dog)" Dauntbares (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  I took issue with a scholarly search of veterinary journals because antiquated words can persist in scientific contexts. I think this would go against WP:COMMONNAME. I then pointed to Ngram results which show that "mutt" has overtaken "mongrel" in recent years. Dauntbares (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  The problem with Ngrams is that it includes all usages of 'mutt' and 'mongrel', without context. It also includes a lot of unreliable self-published books within recent years.

  The majority of uses of 'mutt' and 'mongrel' on a scholar search with 'veterinary' added to the query will be relevant, as opposed other queries where other uses heavily influence the overall results. You can look at the actual ngram results and see what comes up, all I see are books for children, romance novels, and false positives. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  1) I think the fact that "mutt" brings up children, romance novels, and other popular forms of media suggests its common use. Only 1/10 of the results of the first page of results on the search you provided was a false positive (and didn't have to do with dogs)--it was someone's last name.

  I ran a similar search result for "mongrel", which similarly yielded a million search results. It's harder to count the number of false positives on the first page of results, but a clear examples is the first result: "Mongrel Nation" (about mixed-race people in the UK). Some questionable search hits on the first page include "Bridgerton", "Noumenon Infinity", and "The Mongrel Mage", which all have seemingly non-dog characters described as "mongrels", and some of this seems perjorative.

  Setting aside the issue of offensiveness, "mutt" seems to more directly index to dogs (alone) than "mongrel", which seems to be more readily applied to people in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.

  2) The veterinary sources you have identified have been, for the most part, scientific journals. What I find more compelling is what sort of language veterinary organizations use with the public.

  In the US and Canada, "mutt" is clearly preferred, but my searches suggest that in the UK, the British Veterinary Association prefers the term "mongrel" on their website, e.g. , but it seems like the Dog's Trust (the largest dog charity in the UK) prefers the term "mutt". Australia and New Zealand seem to more strongly prefer "mongrel" than the UK, but I'm not sure use of the word "mutt" would be as out-of-place, misunderstood, or jarring in everyday language there as "mongrel" would be in the US and Canada. Dauntbares (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see any evidence that 'mongrel' is likely to be misunderstood or jarring in Ame/CA English, there are many references to 'mongrel' in American English without qualification that suggest otherwise. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Mongrel as offensive and jarring:

  Mongrel in the rhetoric of miscegenation:

  Provide any evidence that "mutt" is as offensive as "mongrel". Dauntbares (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone is arguing that "mongrel" applied to people is insulting. This article is about dogs. Schazjmd (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  My point is that I think "mongrel" even as a term for a dog has been skunked by its deeply offensive history in the US. I think the second two links above most directly substantiate this point.

  I believe there is a linguistic divide between the US and Canada and UK, Australia, and New Zealand. I don't think it's quite clear whether "mongrel" or "mutt" is more widely used worldwide in everyday use (outside of scientific journals), but "mongrel" seems almost taboo in the US in a way that is not comparable to the unpopularity of "mutt" in Australia and New Zealand. I think the UK is somewhere in the middle.

  @Traumnovelle said in a different thread: "I disagree that there are 'problems' with mongrel, especially any such that would not apply to 'mutt'." I was sort of responding to that here. I think "mongrel" and "mutt" are very different words, and we are at liberty to chose a perhaps less frequent though still common term without toxic resonance for the title of an article per WP:COMMONNAME.

  I think this situation is maybe most analogous to Donkey where the historical term "ass" has fallen out of favor due to its vulgar use in a different context. Importantly, "donkey" is the title of the article. Dauntbares (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Except the article makes clear donkey was the common name a couple 200 or so years before Wikipedia existed... Traumnovelle (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Weak oppose no clear primary topic for just "Mutt"[]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above discussion and WP:NOTCENSORED.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
• Strong support IMHO the primary topic of the word mutt is for dogs who have parentage who are not pure breeds, or an offspring of a pure breed and a pure breed of a different breed, aka a mixed-breed dog. While Mutt may be used as a nickname for an individual or MUTT maybe an abbreviation of some term, those individuals or an abbreviation are not the primary topic of the word mutt. While mongrel might be another term for a mixed-breed dog, it is not the first word that comes to mind.
  See these sources:
  *Szabo, Julia (1 January 2005). The Underdog: A Celebration of Mutts. Workman Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7611-3348-3. Retrieved 20 May 2026.
  *T, Annie (4 December 2023). "all about mutts". ASPCA Pet Health Insurance. Retrieved 20 May 2026.
  --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

  Dogs: The Ultimate Dictionary of over 1,000 Breeds, which is one of the more influential and reliable non-veterinary works on dog breeds uses the term mongrel several times without using the term mutt once. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose While I do believe the article would still be the primary topic for "mutt" by longterm significance, and ought to be the primary redirect for mutt, there is nevertheless no clear argument as to why "mutt" would not also be a derogatory term, or that it is used any more heavily, so status quo ante applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how to provide a "clear argument as to why 'mutt' would not also be a derogatory term." It's just not used in the same way. The OED reflects a difference between the usage of those two words and so do a bunch of other websites (that are less established and not necessarily worth citing). While many words can be used in an offensive way, some words just have stronger history of use and common understanding of offense.

  I'm not going to override the consensus here, but I think it might reflect a broader problem of Racial bias on Wikipedia, and I'm not sure what to do about it. Dauntbares (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose — I recently re-wrote a bit of the lead of this article and almost the entire lead of the dog crossbreed article. I did think that "mongrel" was slightly odd - I think "mutt" is probably (without having done any research) the COMMONNAME, but I cannot agree with nominator's stated reasoning per NOTCENSORED. There has obviously been a concerted effort to try to eliminate the use of the title of "mongrel" for this reason over time, (see above) so I think we should be particularly careful that this is not poisoning our drive to switch to "mutt". A strong COMMONNAME argument might be more convincing. Pure numbers aren't always the best gauge, either... certain terms are utilized more heavily in certain nations. The DPT arguments mentioned earlier are not convincing. I do, however, support that the primary redirect of "mutt" should be to the "mongrel" article.  — MWFwiki (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  I think the consensus here reflects a misunderstanding of the meaning of WP:NOTCENSORED which does not contain any language justifying the use of racist, value-laden, or non-neutral language for its own sake--it's about content. The manual of style actually seems to reflect this nuanced distinction between bowdlerizing content and the avoidance of nonencylopedic language (MOS:VULGAR). Dauntbares (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think the use of the term "mongrel" in the title is necessary, but it would go to far to completely omit mention of the term in the article because it is still widely used in some parts of the English-speaking world. Dauntbares (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  It is not a vulgar term, it is used in many academic sources. Another example is 'bitch', which is a vulgar term when applied to a woman but as a term for a female adult canine it is entirely appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  In much of the English speaking world, "Mongrel" is a vulgar term when applied to people. It's concerning that you won't acknowledge the gravity of the word and that you try to equate its offensiveness with the word "mutt".

  I think we disagree fundamentally on what language is appropriate for a title and what language is appropriate for the text of an article.

  For similar reasons, I think it would be inappropriate if the article simply titled "Bitch" was about female dogs with no reference to its pejorative use against women--even though it is a common term for a female dog.

  Currently, this article only makes brief mention to "negative connotations" of the word "mongrel" without even mentioning miscegenation discourse. I think a little more detail on this point would improve the article but ultimately wouldn't address my larger concern about the title. Dauntbares (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." (WP:COMMONNAME) Dauntbares (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree that there are 'problems' with mongrel, especially any such that would not apply to 'mutt'. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.