Talk:American Pit Bull Terrier/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Law Dogs USA

Someone please add in the link to Diane Jessup's site lawdogsusa.org. They take rescued APBT's and train them as service dogs for law enforcement. It's non-profit and I have nothing to do with it, it's just some nice positive press for this fantastic breed and their true capabilities. It's one of those sites which really helps dispel some of the myths surrounding this breed. I tried at one point to add it in but some smug jerk named Trysha removed it claiming me to be a spammer advertising my own site. At first I thought about removing every wikipedia reference to any site I host (trust me there are hundreds) but I decided to try this tack instead. So, someone who can't be accused of nonsense by Trysha, please edit in lawdogsusa.org. Check it out, it's not a scam or spam.

That and her workingpitbull.com site. It could be argued that it is commercial since it includes her breeding kennel, but it is one of the best sites out there for information about the breed.

Bryandale (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added links to LawdogsUSA.com and Diane Jessup's theworkingpitbull.com. She is one of the most knowledgeable people around when it comes to this breed of dog. Dablyputs (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Biased beyond belief

I found a web site (the sources I haven't checked) that give a good idea of the temperament of the pit bull : http://www.realpitbull.com/temperament.html . The pit bull is a powerful dog and if that power is put to bad uses it can certainly be dangerous. I've spent time in Mexico where I saw how some dogs were trained so hard to fight, and you can't help but think: poor them, it's not their fault, that's what they were taught--that's what they think they must do. When you look at people in the army, some are trained to keep the peace, others are trained to destroy the enemy. What it all comes down to really is the good judgement of people. If you see that your pit bull is agressif---don't breed it! In Toronto they have a pit bull walking club, and they have all the dogs on leashes, and they wear halters (those things that keep their mouth closed), and that's what we (pit bull owners) should do. If you want to buy a dog that has such controversy, be ready to be EXTRA responsible, that way people feel safe, and you proove (one dog at a time) that they are good dogs. I do admit I own a pit bull, and I think she's the best ever, so this is a biais statement ;). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.152.51 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just want to say how one sided, poorly written and presented this article is. Everyone is entitled to an opinion on Pitbulls but wikipedia is a supposedly unbiased information source. This article is obviously written entirely by pitbull lovers and as such is probably the most unhelpfull, poorly written page I've ever read on WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.60.213 (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

First, a pitbull is a mixed breed dog. The American Pit Bull Terrier is what I believe you're talking about. And how many other dog pages have people complaining about how they don't like the breed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.56.8 (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The biased information has been removed from the article I think, should we remove the template from the top page or are there any other concerns to be aware of ? Felix the Hurricane 23:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Be careful not to go on an inquisition and cleanse facts too. Sukiari 08:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that claims of bias are completely unfounded. The person making this claim points to no single specific instance of bias/misinfromation and instead offers only speculation and his personal beliefs.155.13.48.8 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, it seems that any mention of the aggressive nature and large volume of attacks by Pitbulls, Pitbull Terriers, or whatever name they changed the breed to this week to keep people confused about what a pitbull is or isn't, is immediately removed from the page. This is a poor article in its current state.Sukiari (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am neither positively nor negatively inclined towards pitbulls but I agree that at the very least nearly all of the statements made about APBT behavioral tendencies are unsourced. It is however not easy to find information based on some empirical evidence about pit bull behavior. Virtually all evidence that will be found are news sources which naturally report on the 'more newsworthy' stories of APBTs attacking people. Evidence in favor of APBTs should perhaps be sought in information supplied by Kennel organizations or other institutions that would support scientific studies on dog behavior. In the meanwhile, before such evidence is found, a minimalistic approach should be adopted in my opinion. To be of some help towards that I am able to distill some facts that need more reference, but seem to be very believable(true) anyway

• The APBT was at one time bred for fighting, or at least it's ancestors where.
• There have been many cases of APBTs attacking humans
• APBT tend not to be aggressive towards humans in particular, but more towards other dogs and other animals.
• There are however, also countless examples of good-natured APBTs that are friendly to humans as well as other dogs.
• News reports on APBTs tend to be negatively inclined as the negative news about the breed is inherently either more newsworthy 'dog injures child vs dog plays with child' or more frequently occuring 'dog injures man vs dog saves man from drowning'.
• Whether the dog isn't naturally more aggressive is at least up to some dispute until reliable sources are found.
• What can be stated is that the dog can be trained to be non-aggressive, evidenced by the fact that there are many non-aggressive APBTs. Again, no unsourced statements should be made on how hard this is.

I would leave out any comment about social responsibility of any owners, unless you have very reliable sources with very solid evidence to support your claims. Amsterdam 0:53, 25 january 2008 (GMT +1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.41.184.168 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. A very poor and highly biased article, even if I do agree with a lot of what it says. I want to be informed, not given a rant. JFormaldehydeM (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So in your view any comments that don't reflect your prejudices are biased. Have you ever owned a pit bull? It seems to me that allegations of pit buls as "vicious" come from people with absolutely no experience of the breed and no knowledge other than the crazed fear-mongering of the main stream press. This comes from PETA's attempts to vilify the bread as their first step of the genocide of all domesticated animals. The American Pitbull Terrier has a long history as America's dog and its favourite pet including many famous pit bulls like Petie from the Little Rascals and the RCA Victor dog. Its only since PETA got involved that we have started hearing this urban legend that they are vicious dogs. Pitbull owners are defending the greatest dog in the world. The dog that has long been considered "America's dog" and that is the greatest family pet in history. This is why we are so strident. The pitbull is too great a dog to see is destroyed by prejudice, ignorance, fear and radical animal rights ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanrd (talk • contribs) 05:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Is it your contention that it is impossible to learn about the Space Shuttle without flying in it? Is it impossible to learn about the Sun without going there? Your bias shows clearly. Sukiari (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that this article is going down the crap hole extremely quickly. The version that was here a year ago was better then the current one. This one is poorly written, and extremely biased. Delmet (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Extrememly biassed, obviously written by people with strong feelings in favor of pitbulls. It's great to have people who are passionate about the topic writing about it, but to be putting things like capital emphasis saying "Pitbulls are NOT violent" is obviously in violation of the NPOV policy. If you're going to be biassed, at least dress the language up a little so it's not blatant. Gregory j (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to allege bias, provide some evidence. Some facts to support your viewpoint. The fact is that every expert study, every dog expert, every trainer, every breeder, every professional veterinary association and every reputable dog organization will tell you that there is nothing wrong with the American Pit Bull Terrier. They have in fact been bred to be non-aggressive toward people, and they are in fact known for their stable temperaments and friendly nature notwithstanding the urban legends being propogated by the mass media. This is an encyclopedia and so it does deal in fact, not nonsense. If you want to trash pit bulls, send out a spam email. There are lots of sites tracking those kinds of scams. Bryandale (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The tone of the article is totally unsuitable for anything that claims to be a serious encyclopedia. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the article to be more accurate, reference reputable breed standards and temperment testing organizations and removed most of what appeared to be opinion. I would really like to see the dispute about his article ended. Although I own a pit bull and could be described as a pit bull fanatic, I have no interest other than seeing this article reflect the truth about this particular breed of dog. I am happy to address any uncited facts, issues of conjecture or opinion. I did not base my updates to this article on my experience or opinion about the dog. Dablyputs (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

First Off, I Have owned and American Pit Bull Terrier for a year now and i must say it is the best dog i have ever had. I have owned two Dobermans, Two Dachshunds, A Rat Terrier, a Jack Russell, And a Doberman/Beagle Mix. I was very weary before i adopted my pit bull because i was scared from what i heard about them. This dog is the most loving, caring, and smartest dog i have had. He sleeps with my nine year old sister sometimes and is very defensive of someone walking into her room at night. He is friendly with neighboorhood dogs and people. He has not done anything to show any acts of aggression at all. I have tried holding a toy or food in my mouth and he gingerly takes it out or does not come near my face. If we are playing tug and i put my face near his, he will drop whatever he has and sit immediatly. I have friends that have since gotten pit bulls (because they love mine so much) and they are the same. My Pit Bull Is about 28 in at the shoulder and weighs about 81 lbs, so hes not a small dog. I thought that the article was well written from someone who has not owned a Pit Bull and teh comments on this page are obviously from people that dont know them. And Pit Bulls are not the only dogs that fight. I have been bitten twice by Labs and those are common fighting dogs, too. Love this link by the way (unsigned) http://www.realpitbull.com/temperament.html TM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.140.51 (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've re-read this article after several months and I see little problem with it. Many of the claims are sourced and are neither anti- nor pro- APBT.Bokuto (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

I don't see a problem with this article either. I don't feel it strongly leans one way or the other. There will always be people complaining about this article and will never have any sources for their belief that the article should state how "aggressive" and "vicious" this breed is. I've always found it funny how a vast majority of people that work with and research dogs of all breeds on a daily basis don't see this breed as a "vicious" dog, yet others that only have limited anecdotal evidence or media reports (which obviously feed on scare tactics -- remember the horrible swine flu?) believe they know more about the breed? Oh yeah, you don't have to fly in a space shuttle to know about it, but personally I'll take advice from someone that has before I do from someone that hasn't. The only evidence "proving" the supposed trait of aggression with this breed is from the often-quoted CDC statistics (by the way, thanks for noticing that CDC states that the evidence is not to be taken as "proof" of anything because of it's sources), media reports (are they focused on getting stories that will garner more viewers, or are they actually dog experts?), and the Clifton report (also based on hand-picked media reports). This article will never be at the point where everyone is satisfied with it. If you do not put a picture of a snarling APBT with blood dripping from a baby clenched in its mouth, the anti-pit bull people will be in an uproar. If you do, the people that actually have experience with the breed, as well as reputable sources, will be upset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorsher (talk • contribs) 01:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is PITBULLSONTHEWEB.COM a reliable source?

I have been reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources and am very concerned about this article; the vast majority of it is not sourced, and the rest attributes a website called "pitbullsontheweb.com". How reliable is that website, really, and why should an encyclopedia be using it as a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxX mossbreaker XxX (talk • contribs) 20:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a pro-pit site. I wouldn't cite it, at least not without a disclaimer about whose opinion it is. Gigs (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The owner of the site has good information, but seems to know little about the APBT for what it was, and indeed still is beyond a rescued pet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.56.8 (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The ref to pitbullsontheweb.com has been replaced with a more authoritative one. Dablyputs (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

With "facts" like "They generally greet strangers with wagging tails and big smiles as well.", it's obvious how biased this article is. Something needs to be done about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.38.225 (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can prove the stated fact false, perhaps you should get lost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.181.136 (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Guard Dog

Okay, it MUST be stated that a true APBT is NOT a good guard dog. The APBT is a breed that is bred to be extremely dog aggressive and and extremely human friendly. As the actual breed is supposed to be, any APBT showing ANY human aggression, even of the guard dog variety is not a good specimin of the breed.

True, today's APBT has taken on a truly disgusting persona as an aggressive killer. And this is why. People thinking these dogs are good guard dogs. Then when they do not behave accordingly, they are made to be aggressive.

Sorry, but any true APBT owner will tell you that they are not good guard dogs. Watch dogs, yes. Guard dogs, no.

APBTs trained in protection are the only exception to this, and not how they are most often called pit bulls or amstaffs rather than APBTs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.56.8 (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be two different opinions of what this dog breed should be. One espoused by the AKC and pitbull fans in public, and the 'real life' reality - which sees pits used extensively for guard dog duties. It is a fighting dog, and in fact the pitbull has seen recent action as a human vs dog fighting breed. Pitbull colored glasses in effect here. Sukiari (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, but those who support the original American Pit Bull Terrier and who continue to produce the working APBT (meaning a dog that performs in weight pull, hog hunting, etc. not dog fighting) and of course the original dog fighters who saw the creation of the breed (and the few still around today) will note that the APBT should never show human aggression and should never be bred for it. As I said, some are now trained and perform great in protection duties for cops and such. Of course, with the negativity and the crowd the APBT has attracted in today's society, we are seeing more APBTs showing human aggression, dogs bred to be guard dogs. And they're simply not within breed standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.56.8 (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added information under the heading "Temperment" that indicates that this dog is not an appropriate guard dog. Dablyputs (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It is quite important for people to realize that an APBT should never be a guard dog. A watch dog, sure. But the breed should never show aggression toward people, unless they find their owner in immediate danger, of course, as any dog would react to protect the owner. 76.89.24.7 (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have two - one APBT and one SBT/Lab mix.. I can tell you that if someone comes to my door the dogs will bark... once they realize the visitor is not a threat, they roll over on their backs and wait for a petting... they MIGHT lick you to death. I agree that they are awesome "watch" dogs. They would "watch" my house get ransacked if someone broke in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.156.119 (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Bias

If anyone sees any particular sentence or paragraph where they note anything other than neutral facts, would you kindly point it out? I went through and made some changes and I think the article looks fairly decent now.

What I've noticed is that it seems that only 'pet bull' owners are editing this. As this is a working breed, the 'game' APBT must be noted above the 'pet' APBT, which is more closer to an Amstaff than the traditional APBT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.56.8 (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that as well, but 'pet' bulls are still APBTs nonetheless. If we wanted to, we could easily create two seperate articles on the working APBT and the modern 'pet' APBT. I've tried phasing in alot of information pertaining to the true, working-bred APBT many times, but the parts always get edited back out. It seems like people don't want to tell other people that the true working APBT is most often extremely aggressive with other dogs and not at all content to be couch dogs in the house with their family, needing hours of exercise every day and a job to fulfill. I'm the owner of two gamedogs and a pet dog, and they're all amazing animals with extremely loving temperments. But there is a huge difference between the way they need to live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.56.8 (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair to make blanket statements about 'pet' vs. 'working' APBTs. I would like to know specifically what bias you see in this article.

Also, please indent your comments using two colons as it makes the discussion thread easier to follow and sign your comments using four tildas ~. It appears as though this is a conversation you are having with yourself since there are two consecutive posts from the same ip address. Dablyputs (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What would help with a lot of the arguments over whether or not this article is biased, would be the use of a reputable source for the typical APBT behavior that may not be normal to other dogs.

First, fighting dogs were/are bred to not cower, when in confrontational settings. (I have only ever been around APBTs as a small child on...and now own a lab.) Typically, a scared dog will bite, and most APBTs I've been around won't scare (hence the reason my easily terrified lab worries me--socialization works for that, too.)

Second, fighting dogs tend to bite when they are protecting people, territory (less often), and when they have been allowed to be the dominant member in the house for too long. An APBT is more likely to bite you when you grab at his food/chewtoy if he/she has been humping you for 6 months, or allowed to growl whenever you get to close to it's belongings. Nip it in the bud, it becomes a non-issue.

Because of when the APBTs are likely to bite, their ears stand forward, their tail stops wagging, they stand their ground, and often they don't make a single noise (although growling does occur). Most other dog types, when they are about to bite, lay their ears back, their hair raises, they back up, and they will practically foam at the mouth while growling. Most people know to stay away from the latter, but the former they ignore like the dog is ready to play. This ignorance (on this specific issue and others) is what puts most people in the hospital.

Come on, we don't expect wolfs/wolf-dogs, coyotes/coyote-dogs, or foxes to behave like well-bred dogs. Just because any given breed is generally more tame than those wild canines does not mean that all dogs give off the same body language.

Another dog breed's issue: Reputable breeders know about keeping an eye on Dalmatians due to a genetic disease (due to puppy mills) that makes their brains grow faster than their skulls. (At 2 years of age, their tempers can turn because of chronic headaches.) In spite of this, most dalmatians are loveable.

There are books and papers on variations in dog body languages. Look into it. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonSlaveII (talk • contribs) 00:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

DragonslaveII knows what hes talking about. You dont know a pitbull is going to attack untill it does. They act on 100% instinct and no reason. What amazes me about APBT's is how they can be so friendly towards people. Yet so agressive towards other animals exspecially dogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.178.94 (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and tone

Has the neutrality and tone of this article improved? I wanted to know if it was still necessary to include the templates for those items, or what specifically can be improved. Felix the Hurricane (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see serious problems with the additions just made to the History section. The references listed do not support the claims being made in the history in any way. Furthermor, the references listed are to the National Terriers Club LLC website. I have never heard of the National Terriers Club LLC, they are not listed in a separate Wikipedia article and the National Terriers Club LLC website fails to mention who they are, when they were created, who created it or why they were created. The issue with Mastiff's being registered as American Pit Bull Terriers does not ad any value to the article and appears to be one person's person grudge against the UKC. I agree that the dogs pictured are not APBTs and shouldn't be registered as such, I just don't think that issue needs to be discussed on this page.

My only interest in editing this article is to have a clear, accurate and neutral description of the breed without any of the hyperbole associated with it.

I welcome any discussion about the breed or the changes made from the user known as "Working Terrier", who, incidentally has not posted anything to this talk page. Dablyputs (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the registries really have much to do with what the dog is. Registries set a standard and sanction events like dogs shows and weight pull competitions, etc. It's up to the judges at the shows to decide how well the dogs meet the standard. The standard for the APBT set by the and the UKC and ADBA are reasonable to me and widely regarded as being the definitive standard for the breed. You may be right about those mastiffs being registered as pit bulls, I know nothing about it. I don't know anything about "falsifying papers" or registries lying about this or that. What I do know, is what an American Pit Bull Terrier looks like and generally where it came from, who created the UKC and ADBC and why. Those facts are well documented and available for the public to see. I don't know what the NTC is and there is little or no information available about it on their website or anywhere else. Also, the first link on the NTC website regarding pit bulls called California Jack's 2008 Indispensable Tips is a link to a thinly veiled book about dog fighting, and that I do have a huge problem with.

The tone you use in the history section is not neutral and cites questionable references. You apparently have some problem with the UKC and ADBA. I think it should be reverted back to an older version. Dablyputs (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I: am not commenting on the registries at all. I want the part of the History section that comments on the registries removed because it is unsupported and not from a neutral point of view. Dablyputs (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not supported? It is not neutral? Facts are always neutral. Working terriers (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Working Terriers,

I think you make some significant and valid additions to the history section however the tone and the references need to be cleaned up and expanded. Here are the specific things I take issue with:

1. In the first paragraph you mention several terriers to which the APBT is related. Although the exact mix is either disputed or lost to history, it is a fact they are terrier breeds. I would prefer that you limit the number of terriers you reference in this paragraph. Including 4 different terriers doesn't necessarily bring more clarity to the issue of the history of the APBT. Unless you have a specific document which directly supports your assertion and falls under Wikipedia's citation guidelines, I suggest we limit it to just the Black and Tan terrier and the Patterdale.

2. The tone in the paragraph that begins: "Fighting dogs were bred for their gameness" needs to be changed. It isn't necessary to say "the popular ignorance of today". That is opinion and unnecessarily negative.

3. It is a fact that fighting dogs need to have a strong bite. I get that you are saying that the APBT does not have an extraordinarily strong bite for a dog it's size and that it doesn't have th ability to kill with just one bite. But the fact is that bite strength would have been a consideration in the effectiveness of a fighting dog. If the force of a dog's bite is weaker than the force of it's head thrashing the dog will lose it's grip, it's simple physics. The bite strength needed to be sufficient enough to hold a 55 pound dog on a thrashing bull or pig which would indicate a significant amount of force. I know that a pit bull doesn't necessarily have stronger bite than a Rotweiler or similar dog, and I think that is what you are trying to say. You need to clarify that.

4. You need to completely remove this: "they are thoughtful decendants of fighting dogs whom under any situation have the calm, cool, and thoughtfulness of a dog sitting on a couch." Dogs that are in a heightened state of prey drive or fight drive are not as calm as dogs sitting on the couch and it's ridiculous to say so. I am confident that my 35 pound American Pit Bull Terrier would never bite me or any person intentionally but she has bitten me accidentally when playing because she is in such a heightened state. Also, my current and previous dogs would do anything to get at a squirrel including running into a moving car. They aren't displaying the calm, cool and thoughtfulness of a dog sitting on a couch in that situation. I think you are trying to express the fact that dog aggression and human aggression are different drives and that one has nothing to do with the other. Those facts are well stated throughout the article but I don't have a problem with you reiterating it here. Just make it clearer, change to the tone to fall within Wikipedia acceptable standards and back it up with a reference.

5. The paragraph that starts: "Some dogs are born to chase cats" is completely irrelevant to the history of the APBT. It has been stated previously that they may be aggressive toward animals. You can specify cats if you would like but that doesn't belong in the history section. The rest is drivel and should be taken out.

6. It's worth mentioning the discussion about the registries and the way they treat the breed so long as you have SOLID references to support your claim. 4 links to the APBT page on the NTC site does not constitute solid evidence. As it is now, the breed registry section is what dominates the history section article. Either start another article about breed registry controversies or just cite the controversy and include a link to an article about it. I would like to see you remove the picture of those two ugly mastiffs. The Bull and Terrier photo is fine as long as you have the rights to it.

7. You should start a Wikipedia page for the NTC which elaborates on it's history and purpose. There is no such information about that even on their own site so they are hanging in the breeze as far as being a credible source of information.

If you can address the points I have made above and be careful with your spelling, grammar and opinion I won't have a problem with what is in the History section of this article.

Dablyputs (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected

The page is now protected for seven days days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If the information you have added to the History section is in fact gleaned from 1000's of questions answered by notable authoritative breeders and fanciers, can we please see the questiosn and the answers and the names of the people who answered them? That would make what you are posting valid since it is backed up with a solid reference. The only reference you post is to the poorly written APBT page on the NTC website which has no authority backing it up. Dablyputs (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. I saw that this page was listed for a third opinion. I agree with Diably that edits made to the history section, such as this one, are unacceptable. The tone there is wholly unacceptable - "Sounds good, right? Except for the fact that the Old English Bulldog was extinct by the 1810's." should never be part of a Wikipedia article. This article is not meant as a place for you to argue. Stick with a neutral tone when writing articles.

I believe that this issue is easily solved through the use of references. Per WP:RS and WP:V, only reliable secondary sources should be used in an article. To that end, the following are just a few snippets from the history section in the current version of the article should be removed:

• "Very few American Pit Bull Terrier's have ever possessed the abilities needed to kill another fighting dog, it was/is very rare for a dog to be killed while fighting."
• "American Pit Bull Terrier's would fight other dogs within inches of people (their handlers) and they would even be picked up by their handlers during the heat of battle."
• "Some dogs are born to chase cats, some dogs are born to chase their tails, and some are even born to chase people. The American Pit Bull Terrier was born to hunt/chase wild game and other dogs, and its not in them to chase their tails or people, although they have been known to chase a cat or two."

Next: Almost all of the history section is being sourced by a single page: nationalterriersclub.com. To be honest, I don't see anything on this page that indicates that it's a reliable source. The page itself is pretty argumentative, blaming things on "The Corporate Media's agenda". Googling for the group only yields 112 hits and only 3 news articles, none of which seem to be about the same group. Surely there have to be some other sources out there to back the claims in the article. I have a hard time believing that there are no books on the entire planet that have anything to say about the American pit bull terrier. Find some sources to back the claims, or else they should be removed from this page.

Hope this helps. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read all of the articles on www.dawnrestdogs.org. I am a member of the Northern Virgina American Pit Bull Terriers club and I have owned more than one pit bull. I have never been to a dog fight because dog fighting is a felony in 49 states, including the one I live in. I only use my experience as an example to illustrate the point I am trying to make in the talk page (here) not in the article about the APBT (which is what I thought we were talking about). I know quite well who Barney Fife and Don Mayfield are as well as Maurice Carver, Howard Heinzl and countless other "dogmen" because I read books and I know how to use google. Those men have actually written books or been quoted in books and there are several well known publications about the breed and about dog fighting which interview them or quote them. All of that is irrelevant however because I am not trying to persuade you to accept my opinion in any way because I am not an expert. I haven't written any articles or books about the breed so my opinion doesn't count. Even if I did write a book about the subject, it wouldn't count as source material for this article because original research by the person writing the article is not a valid source for citation.

You can say whatever you like in the History section of the article so long as it is backed up by references to publications that fall within Wikipedia's guidelines for acceptable source material as outlined in the Wikipedia talk that you were sent and explained here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and here: Wikipedia:Cite_sources

You have not cited anything in the material you have written other than the dubious NTC website. Regardless of who you know, how many dogs you have owned, how many dog fights you have attend or anything else, you still need to cite your sources when writing an article for Wikipedia. Opinions don't count.

This article isn't about Dog Fighting. It's about a particular breed of dog. Dog fighting information is valid in the History section since that is what this breed was originally intended for, however, it is not the thrust of the article as a whole.

Here is a list of book titles and ISBNs and other publications about dog fighting and the APBT which it would be appropriate for you to reference in this article. It took me about 2 minutes to compile this list:

The Book of the American Pit Bull Terrier

ISBN-10: 0866227199

World of the American Pit Bull Terrier

ISBN-10: 0876668511

Thirty Years with Fighting Dogs

ISBN-10: 190512404X

Fighting Dogs - The American Pit Bull Terrier - An Anthology

ISBN-10: 1846642574

Memories Of The Pit Bull Terrier And His Master

ISBN-10: 1846644240

Colby's Book of the American Pit Bull Terrier

ISBN-10: 079382091X

PUBLICATIONS:

Amrican Dog Breeder's Association

Pit Bull Gazette

Bloodlines

An International Stock Journal Dedicated to Bred Registered Stock

Bulldog Review

(Formerly the National Bulldogger)

National Bulldogger and Historical Review

Pit Bull Quarterly

Dablyputs (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The NTC is my source. If you dont like it, then to bad. We are talking about the history of the American Pit Bull Terrier, and that history includes dogfighting. Working terriers (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Some quick talk page etiquette: It's considered standard to tab in your comments with colons, so we can see the logical progression of the argument. You'll see that I put colons (:) before each of your lines so everything tabs nicely. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dablyputs has hit the nail on the head. "Regardless of who you know, how many dogs you have owned, how many dog fights you have attend or anything else, you still need to cite your sources when writing an article for Wikipedia. Opinions don't count." Sources are paramount. The bottom line is that we need sources. This is core Wikipedia policy, outlined at WP:RS and WP:V. Working terriers, I urge you to read those articles and understand them fully. Until then, these paragraphs cannot stay on the page. I'd like to see someone propose a new version of the History page, and we can discuss things from there. I can do it if you want, but I know very little about the subject. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The source was cited, it is the NTC link. Are you saying that the information on the NTC website cannot be cited on Wikipedia? I have seen many websites and many other registries cited on Wikipedia, yet you are saying the NTC is the only on who cannot be cited? Why is that? Working terriers (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In short, yes, I'm questioning the reliability of that source. It doesn't strike me as particularly reliable due to the reasons I listed above. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Be specific, what part are you calling unreliable pertaining to the history of the APBT, and why? What proof do you have that would call into question the credibility of the NTC, or call into question NTC's ability to publish factual works? Do you have any? Working terriers (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've posted on the reliable sources noticeboard to get an opinion on the reliability of the page. You can view it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#National Terriers Club?. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is how you want to run Wikipedia HelloAnnyong, this is Dablyput "Hisory" section for the APBT page.

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Although the exact history of the breed of dog known as the American Pit Bull Terrier is unknown it is generally agreed that they are descended from dogs bred from bull-and-terrier crosses brought to America from England and Ireland in the 1800s; a dog created for the sport of bull-baiting. When bull-baiting was outlawed in England in by the Cruelty to Animals act in 1835 along with dogfighting, illegal dogfighting gained popularity since it is much easier to organize and conceal than bull-baiting.[7]

As the country grew, many dogs traveled with settlers to new homesteads where they were sometimes used as working dogs on farms.

Fighting dogs were bred for strength, speed and gameness. Dogs needed to be strong yet quick and agile with an extremely hard bite. A breeder also knew that a dog like this could be dangerous to people and difficult to control if it were aggressive toward people, so breeders would look for the crucial trait of nonaggression towards humans. Fighting dogs that showed aggression towards it's owner or handler were routinely killed and thus removed from the gene pool. This resulted a line of strong dogs that, while dog aggressive toward animals, would be much more gentle with people.[8]

In the late 1800s to early 1900s, two clubs were formed for the specific purpose of registering APBTs: the United Kennel Club and the American Dog Breeder's Association. The United Kennel Club was founded with the registration of an American Pit Bull Terrier and was the first registry to recognize the breed.[9]

As dog fighting became less popular in the United States in the early 20th century, many dog owners wanted to legitimize the breed and distance it from it's fighting roots. The name "Staffordshire Terrier" was adopted by some owners and was recognized by the American Kennel Club in 1936. Later, the word "American" was added to reduce confusion with it's smaller British cousin, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Not all breeders, however, agreed with the standard adopted by the AKC, and continued to use the name American Pit Bull Terrier for their lines. Much confusion still remains in regards to the APBT, the AST, and the SBT. Once an extremely popular family dog in the United States (in fact, the dog in the Our Gang movies was an APBT), the American Pit Bull Terrier's popularity began to decline in the United States following World War II in favor of other breeds. _______________________________________________________________________________________

Absolutely no citations at all for many of her claims.

She says: "Although the exact history of the breed of dog known as the American Pit Bull Terrier is unknown". Well the American Pit Bull Terrier is a Bull and Terrier. Want a reference for my claim? How about the name of the breed itself? Wow, "Bull Terrier" is right in the very name, how about that? Brilliant and priceless.

She claims that the Bull and Terrier was for Bull-Baiting. The Old English Bulldog was for Bull-Baiting, not the Bull and Terrier.

She claims: "Fighting dogs were bred for strength, speed and gameness. Dogs needed to be strong yet quick and agile with an extremely hard bite. A breeder also knew that a dog like this could be dangerous to people and difficult to control if it were aggressive toward people." Working terriers (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about the version in this edit, right? I'll take a look at it in a minute and give my opinion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I made a mistake on some citations under the history page. I apologize about that. I am here to try and help make the artical better, and I am willing to compromise with anyone. The history page needs alot of work, and I would like to help.

How about this?

The American Pit Bull Terrier is a cross between the Old English Bulldog and a variety of Fox and Fell Terriers. These crosses were made in England during the 1700's and early 1800's . When bull-baiting was outlawed in England by the Cruelty to Animals act 1835 along with dogfighting, illegal dogfighting gained popularity since it is much easier to organize and conceal than bull-baiting.

As the country grew, many dogs traveled with settlers to new homesteads where they were sometimes used as working dogs on farms.

Fighting dogs were bred for their gameness and/or ability to win. Most fighting dogs would take a hold of their opponent and rely on their gameness and/or their conditioning/stamina to win. A very small percentage of American Pit Bull Terrier's possessed the ability to kill another fighting dog, and it was very rare for a dog to be killed while fighting. American Pit Bull Terrier's would fight other dogs within inches of people (their handlers) and they would even be picked up by their handlers during the heat of battle. If any of these dogs showed any aggression towards either handler, the dog would automatically be declared the loser and the fight would be ended immediately. This led to a very stable breed of dogs that simply and rarely would even consider biting a person for any reason at all. The American Pit Bull Terrier is not the type of dog that just "snaps", they are thoughtful decendants of fighting dogs whom under any situation have the calm, cool, and thoughtfulness of a dog sitting on a couch.

In the late 1800s to early 1900s, two clubs were formed for the specific purpose of registering APBTs: the United Kennel Club and the American Dog Breeder's Association. The United Kennel Club was founded with the registration of an American Pit Bull Terrier and was the first registry to recognize the breed.

As dog fighting became less popular in the United States in the early 20th century, many dog owners wanted to legitimize the breed and distance it from it's fighting roots. The name "Staffordshire Terrier" was adopted by some owners and was recognized by the American Kennel Club in 1936. Later, the word "American" was added to reduce confusion with it's smaller British cousin, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Not all breeders, however, agreed with the standard adopted by the AKC, and continued to use the name American Pit Bull Terrier for their lines. Much confusion still remains in regards to the APBT, the AST, and the SBT. Once an extremely popular family dog in the United States (in fact, the dog in the Our Gang movies was an APBT), the American Pit Bull Terrier's popularity began to decline in the United States following World War II in favor of other breeds.

Couldn't that work?Working terriers (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to see sources for the statements in there. Once we have some sources, then we can discuss further. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I can get some help referencing it. I also contacted the owner of the NTC and he said he will make some changes to the NTC's APBT page. Working terriers (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, see, that's not a solution. I believe that your contact with the owner both invalidates the page as a reliable source, and makes you a conflict of interest. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I also contact the owners of the UKC and ADBA from time to time. What does that mean? It means that I register dogs with all of them and all of them provide customer service. Anyone can call or e-mail these registries and ask to talk to the owner/s. Conflict of intrest if you talk to management or ownership? lol Working terriers (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The link is unreliable because, in theory, you could get them to change the page to whatever you want. If the source keeps changing, then it's inherently unreliable. It's a conflict of interest because you're involved with the source on some level. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 07:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I E-mailed the NTC and ask to speak with the owner. The owner contacted me back and I told him that I thought some parts of the apbt page on his site might be a little opinionated or argumentative. He e-mailed me back saying that he agreed and that he would have it fixed. I dont see a conflict of intrest, I see a registry taking the advice of a customer into consideration, which is something most of them do. I highly doubt that they will let me control their website. You need to get a grip. Working terriers (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, it would be nice to have the history page worked on and have it set up better, but its not worth all this time and energy. You two can revert/edit the page anyway you want to. I am done with it. Working terriers (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry there Working terriers but I have to agree with the other folks, I would much rather have Wikipedia using reliable works which are published as opposed to a biased website that can change with the wind. Felix the Hurricane (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I propose we revert the history section to this edit, to use as a baseline. I will work on expanding it and cleaning it up once the lock is taken off the article. Dablyputs (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I'd also encourage you (and whoever else is active here) to find better sources for the page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record I agree with the changes made so far and hope that they will continue in this general direction. Felix the Hurricane (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Professionalism/Tone

The tone of this article is very unprofessional. It really seems like it needs to be reorganized and have a basic copyedit to clean up the tone.

There's also some information that I would dispute based on what I have read at reputable APBT information sites like badrap.org, animalfarmfoundation.org and workingpitbull.com: namely that APBTs are stubborn and require a firm hand (that's code for "these dogs are dominant"). From everything I've read, most APBTs are submissive and "soft" with people. I generally count specialized rescues and highly-respected breeders as experts, and they don't paint the breed as all rainbows and roses either so I think it is relatively objective information. Krishva (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has spent my life raised around the authentic, gamebred APBT, I can say that under an experienced hand, a gamedog is extremely willing to please and eager to learn. However, many of today's APBTs, who have been bred for lower prey drive and such, tend to be a bit more stubborn. All APBTs do need an strong owner who has experience with these dogs, because they are extremely driven and can quickly take advantage of a weakness in the owner. They can become dominant very quickly and in turn can become a bit of a handful. 76.89.24.7 (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Neutrality?

I am failing to see why this article is not neutral? I could try to help fix it if someone would tell me what needs fixing. 76.89.24.7 (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that the article is biased. However, I agree that the article may appear to be biased. It seems that what we have here is a simple misunderstanding similar to those which we often encounter in many other areas of life. On the one hand, anyone who has ever been a serious owner of a well bred APBT would likely to agree with most of what is written. They would be likely to agree with it not necessarily because they previously read the information in an newspaper column, or consulted statistical data, or studied the book, but simply because of their own experience in keeping these dogs and the experience of other people they would have come across in keeping APBT. On the other hand, anyone who has little or no experience with APBT, if they are to make their opinion about the article they would naturally have to revert to other sources of information. And here, as the article clearly mentions, these other sources may not always be reliable. In particluarly media is especially dangerous here: while it often plays the role of the most influential source of information for people with little or no experience, it itself often comes from people who have little or no experience! It's not that it is impossible to learn about the Space Shuttle without flying in it, it is just that the process of learning other than from the first-hand experience is inevitably far more succeptible to mistakes. This is the problem that the article should strive to address - to help people learn without making mistakes. This inevitably means referencing to reliable sources - not because the opinions expressed in the article are biased, but because they could appear to be so. As lawyers sometimes say, justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. (128.243.253.217 (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

CDC Article

I noticed looking through that there isn't a very fair evaluation of the attacks pitbulls have engaged in. Perhaps the CDC dog attack/fatality research article from 2000 could be included. The CDC isn't going to lie and they don't seem to endorse breed specific legislation, so in my mind that study would be a good, neutral contribution to the article.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf Anungoliant (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since this is the APBT article, and not the Pit Bull article, that's not much help at all. Considering all the breeds they consider 'pit bulls', it isn't fair at all to pin them all on APBTs. And note that they use 'Pit-Bull Type', not APBT, so it makes it even worse. That category hold many purebreds and many many mixed breeds who people have decided are 'pit bulls'. It's simply not a reliable record for APBT attacks. 76.89.24.7 (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article DOES distinguish between purebred pit-bull types and crossbreeds. Also, I would assume they are using the traditional definition of pit-bull type which would include only three breeds, one of which is the American Pit Bull Terrier. Additionally, this is just a research article, there is no "pinning" blame on a breed, it is just statistics. And the statistics show quite clearly that purebred pit-bull types (which would clearly include the American Pit Bull Terrier) are at a higher risk of aggression towards humans. I think it is the responsible thing to do to at least mention the data in the article.

   Anungoliant (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Anungoliant, you just wrote:

And the statistics show quite clearly that purebred pit-bull types ... are at a higher risk of aggression towards humans.

I agree that it's a good article with clear information and I think too it should be included as a reference. Your sentence I quoted shows however how it is likely to mislead a little bit, if not complemented by additional statistical information. Notice that the article is concerned with risk of fatalities not with the risk of aggression. These are two different things, demonstrating two different points as far as the breed is concerned. Because of APBTs particular features (that it was bred to fight etc) it is a strong tactical fearless and therefore dangerous dog in the sense that should it attack a person the likelihood of the fatal result is higher comparative to other dog breeds - which the article shows. However, if one were to compare the frequency of cases of aggression towards people (whether or not with fatal results), I wouldn't be surprised if for example some doberman by far outdoes APBT. In fact, the article at issue mentions this point, however it would be more illustrative for people to see a separate complementary study which is concerned with instances of aggression generally. (128.243.253.217 (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

That's a very good point. I suppose since it's just the risk of fatality and not overall attack it probably has more to due with jaw strength and persistence than overall aggression. I'm not sure I've ever seen any good research on overall dog attacks that don't result in hospitalization or death, because I suppose a lot of people don't report. Thanks for pointing that out though, I should have clarified that in my previous post. Anungoliant (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What is a pit-bull type dog. It is either a American Pit Bull Terrier or it isn’t. Its not a type, its a breed. This is information that is not even collected properly. The researchers used media sources, which can be the biggest source of misinformation. If the dog is not papered by one of the registries than it is not considered a pure bred and should not be treated as one. "When crossbred dogs were involved in a fatality, each suspected breed in the dog’s lineage was counted once for that episode." This is from the research paper itself. Notice the word suspected breed. I could use any breed I believe or want to believe with no obligation to report the truth. I would not use this. I have done several empirical research papers and I would not call this valid. Just for food for thought if a dog bites someone an it is reported the dog registration number should be recorded if there is no number it should a mut. Then there would be no mistake as to what breed the dog is.

This isn't written like an encyclopedia entry at all.

...how about instead of adding pointless external links, why don't we write this article like an ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRY. As of right now, it looks like an advertisement (for pitbulls?) In addition, all this info about "the media being biased on pitbulls" sounds pointless and out of place. I came here for info, not a rant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.26.94 (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a very informative piece. What did you not learn that you wished to learn? 76.89.24.7 (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should get on the wet end of the stick ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.181.136 (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

unbiased information lacking

I would suggest that at present, the information offered on the temprement of the breed is biasedly written by fans of the breed.

in the interests of fairness and free information it should be noted in the article why the breed has been legislated against. rather than stating that they are human friendly, dog aggressive animals it should be noted that humans with out the ability to command discipline from the animals and that may behave in a way that aggrivates them un-intentionally ie children are at risk in the presence of the dogs and should never be left alone with them.

i only mean for this in the interests of child safety

bella-starky 3-6-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.13.184 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a vehicle for any cause, neither pit-bull promotion the safety of children. Temperment and behavior are not quite the same thing, and it is this distinction that is hard to present in an unbiased fashion. As noted in other sections, the APBT is not the same as many other cross-bred pit-bull type dogs. Unfortunately for all, this style or type of dog has been marketed/bred for fighting in certain areas, and many people, knowingly or not, purchase dogs with dangerous tendencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.255.112 (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is hard to say without offending someone, but here goes. The thought that any APBT would attack a child just because they are a APBT is ignorant. Dogs just like people are taught to act in a certain manner. A dog that is taught by love and affection will know love and affection, this goes for any breed. As a K-9 handler and trainer, I have seen dogs be taught aggression and calmness. It is a learned trait that any dog has the ability to do. I have seen Standard Poodles, German Shepard’s, Labs and many other learn this trait. A owner is responsible for training their dog just like they are responsible for training their child. If the owner fails to do this then they are responsible for what the dog does and should be accountable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyojinclay (talk • contribs) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It all comes down to breeding and the way the dog is raised. APBTs are NEVER supposed to show human aggression of ANY kind. It was something that the breed was bred AGAINST. That being said, many of today's APBTs are not bred the way they should be. They're bred by BYBs looking to make a quick buck or people who want these dogs to look tough and they're either not paying attention to the human aggressive traits or they don't care. Then you have the people who don't breed these dogs, but take them and encourage human aggression. Because ANY dog, when raised in the wrong manner, WILL be a dangerous dog. End of story.

Now, a well-bred APBT raised in the right conditions is not going to pose much of a danger to children. They are dogs bred to tolerate humans extremely well, bred to endure extreme pain. They're perfect for children. However, they ARE prey driven dogs. Leaving your dog alone with a child is a recipe for disaster. A child out on the street is perfect for exciting the prey drive in dogs, resulting in attacks.

76.89.24.7 (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

More info

Hello, I just created a membership for here and am not familiar with all the ins/outs quite yet.

However, I wanted to add that the article states the Netherlands banned the breed in 1993. Although this is true, they have now stated that the ban will be lifted. Here's a link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364641,00.html

No, I'm not a fan of Fox News, but it was one of the first results on google.

It's sad, yet not surprising, to see people still arguing the article is biased. The article gives an accurate and educated portrayal on the breed. It seems that people who have never had any experience with the breed in question, are unwilling to believe that the breed is not the monster they're promoted as, and choose to complain that the article is biased instead of offering supporting statements to back up their claim.

The CDC statistics, as someone stated, are not accurate and the CDC explicitly said that they shouldn't be used in breed specific legislation. The data was gathered from a variety of sources, including media (which is without-a-doubt biased). Proof they're biased?

http://www.ky3.com/news/local/25915634.html

Watch the video. The dog is obviously not a pit bull, yet that's what it's reported as. And unfortunately, this is common. The CDC statistics also put "pit bull" in quotations, because of the large number of breeds and mixes that are called "pit bulls." There are over 20 breeds that are frequently called pit bulls, and 3 that are considered a "true" pit bull.

As you can probably tell from my "bias," I am an owner of an APBT. What many call "bias," I call experience. I find it ironic that those screaming that pit bull owners are biased, are the ones that are taking media reports as 100% honest reporting. I used to believe that pit bulls were vicious dogs although I didn't even have a clue to what they looked like. When I began looking for a dog, I asked my friend what breed his well-behaved dogs were. To my surprise, they were both pit bulls. I found one up for adoption, took her home, and she has been the greatest dog I've ever lived with. Intelligent, loyal, loving, athletic, and a strong desire to please. What more could you want? I've changed the minds of many with her example of a properly-raised pit bull, including my mother who also believed they were vicious. After she finishes her advanced obedience classes, she will begin therapy training.

Kids, watch out... (rolls eyes)

Keep up the good work. Jorsher (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Media" in your example isn't biased, they just report what the PD reported - erroneously or not. They are not in a position to make judgement calls on breeds. They even said that viewers had complained and said it wasn't a "pit bull". They are just trying to rake in the buck like everyone else though, using "pit bull attack" as their headline is laughable. 68.5.190.102 (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

CDC

The CDC article uses the term 'Pit Bull', not APBT. Therefore, one cannot assume that all these dogs were APBTs. They classify APBTs, Amstaffs, and Staffies as 'Pit Bulls', so laying this all on the APBT certainly isn't fair. The article needs to report the info as the source does. The source does not use the American Pit Bull Terrier.

76.89.24.7 (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunate Truths

Upon reading the article I have to say that I disagree with the complaints against it. Yes the article does discuss the dangerous nature of the APBT, however, it also advocates the view that these animals can be well behaved as long as the owner is extra careful and responsible. I think that this is a valid statement. Unfortunately there have been many cases where APBTs have been involved in dangerous attacks and whether we like it or not, it's important that this is recognised as fact not unverified opinion. It is important that people are aware of the negative as well as the positive -both of which are included in the article -so as to make up their own minds.I do not believe that this takes away from the neutrality of the subject or makes it biased in any way. People reading the article are not robots, they have brains to think with and I'm sure that when given good and bad points about a subject they can derive from it, a reasonable conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.247.114 (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Find reliable sources to include in the article and then we'll talk about it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

First, you have to find an attack that can be 100% proven as an APBT attack. Many of these attacks are called 'pit bull' attacks, and the dog can be anything from an APBT or Amstaff to a Boxer, American Bulldog, or even a Lab mix. It's hard to know the truth behind just about any dog attack, as far as breed goes, unless it is a purebred dog of a breed that isn't easily mistaken for another or unless the owner states what breed the dog was.

76.177.203.38 (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Aggressiveness towards dogs

In my experience (ie. no references to back it up) they are not any more likely to attack humans than german shepards... however far more likely to attack other dogs. For example, a friend's dog was recently killed by a stray APBT, and my dog was recently attacked by one (mine is a 120 lb lab and is fine). Maybe a compromise to people's concerns would be to say professionals (or ppl in general) can't seem to agree about whether or not as a breed they are more menacing to humans than others, but are dangerous to other dogs. If i understand the history right, they were bred this way and most people knowledgeable of the breed would not dispute it.76.87.32.137 (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)November 12, 2008

That's nice. This is not a forum. Take it elsewhere. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The article does state that dog aggression is common in these dogs. I do find that to be a little vague, as dog aggression is an actual breed trait of the APBT, but at least it states it.

Some Old-Time Facts that MIght Impact Today's Debates

When the Pit-Bull was a dog-fighting dog, no one bred them in the larger sizes seen tody. The modern minimum of thirty-five pounds or so was more like the average. Dogs bigger than fifty pounds were useless. It wasn't that they couldn't win, because they could. It was because no one would make a match with your dog and you can't make money without fighting the dog.

In a pit-fight, at least in the old days, dogs were routinely separated when they reached unproductive positions. The breakers were not the owners or regular handlers of the dog and they were not bitten very often, even under such stressful conditions. Dogs that exhibited what we call "human aggression" today were routinely destroyed.

This information was available in books about pit-dog fighting when I was young, which was a long time ago. I have seen confirmation of these things in books by the late Vicki Hearne and have been told it was true by people who were there.

My own experience in dog training and talking with other people who do dog training is that it is much harder to get pit-bull type dogs to bite people than it is to get German Shephards or Dobermans to bite people. 71.234.37.99 (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Will in New Haven71.234.37.99 (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of 'majority'

I see a questionable use of the word 'majority' in the sentence 'According to a study done by CDC [4], APBTs account for the majority of fatalities in the US among all breeds.' Proper use of the word majority is restricted to 'greater than 50%' but the numbers show less than 1/3 of the fatalities are caused by this dog type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Japagraham2 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I'm thinking about adding to this page

I have a great book called The American Pit Bull Terrier Handbook by Joe Stahlkuppe and would like to add some of its information to this page. I mainly want to put a little bit of everything about pit bulls such as history, health care, feeding and actives for a pit bull, as well as maybe uploading some more pictures. If any one can give me some feed back on what they would like to see and/or what they don't want to see on this page that would be greatly appreciated, for I am new to this whole thing.--kimi-girl 22:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numberonekim (talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I posted a welcome template on your talk page with a whole bunch of links. If you are new to the project you should make sure you familiarize yourself with some of our key policies before you attempt to contribute to save yourself extra frustration and stuff getting reverted. Key here are notability, verifiability, citing sources, reliable sources, original research, NPOV, What Wikipedia is not and probably a few more I have forgotten. Basically make sure any facts you add are noteworthy enough for inclusion, encyclopedic, properly sourced and neutral. Make sure that the book and author are well regarded as a source. Make sure that you are not including advice. Do not include opinion that is not attributable to someone highly regarded in the field. You can always propose your additions here first to get consensus and help first. Any questions please ask. Mfield (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as pictures go, you cannot copy images out of books, the only images you will be able to upload are images you have taken yourself, or those that are licensed under a compatible license like CC or GFDL. Best place to ask about copyright issues is Media copyright questions. With images, if in doubt always ask first, copyright violations are taken seriously. Mfield (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

More pictures!

Why is there only one picture of the apbt on this article? There should be more pics, maybe some pictures from apbt's way back in the day. Also some pics of modern apbt's, and no I don't mean those inbred, worthless so called "american bullys". Why doens't this article also mention anything about old family red nose pitbulls? And blue nose pits, and the many other beautiful colors the American Pit Bull Terrier. 69.66.27.162 (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Just for clarification, I reverted K84m97's edit for a number of reasons. Since it seems s/he's gone ahead and asked a number of admins about this, I figured I should explain why.

• A bunch of the text was copied directly from a number of sources, including this link. More specifically, all of the text about the official breed standard is taken straight from that site. Forequarters, Hindquarters, and so on. The bottom of the page mentions the copyright, so unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't belong.
• The editor took a whole article that was fairly well sourced and tossed it away in favor of text that was uncited, in violation of copyrights, and messy.
• All of the added text was in list form. These are articles, not lists of facts.
• The two images added aren't APBTs. One says "Colby's Pincher" and gives no indication that it's a pit bull terrier. The caption, "It's said that he was "The greatest fighting dog that ever lived"" is also pretty POV.

And the other thing is that the editor just made these edits and then yelled at me when I reverted. Aside from my following WP:BRD, they could have at least proposed the changes in a sandbox or something, or at least mentioned it here first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong again.

1. wwhat you claim to be from a copyrighted site is from here UKC APBT STANDARD. Since this is the official breed standard it is the same everywhere. It's like the constitution. Forequarters, Hindquarters, and so on are from the official UKC standard UKC APBT STANDARD.

2. There was no copyright violation and the article wasn't well sourced.

3.This is an encyclopedia so list forms are welcomed.

4. The pictures are taken from two early APBTs and since this article is from the APBT it's clear that the APBTs are in the pictures.

5.This user always revert texts and well documented content like the Health section which was cited from the OFA statistic. I think this is vandalism.k84m97 (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you see at the top of the page you linked, where it says "Copyright 1978, United Kennel Club, Inc."? That means they still hold the copyright on it. You can't copy and paste text from it. And just because you add two images to an article doesn't mean that the images are representative of the topic. I could add a picture of a hamburger here, but that doesn't mean that APBTs are hamburgers, does it? As to the health section you added, what do those numbers even mean?

The other thing you need to understand is that some of the links you're giving are not reliable sources. Dogbreedinfo.com, for example. In the About section of that page, the author says that she's not associated with any big organization, and provides no real reason for why anything on her site is trustworthy. Since the site is self-published, it really can't be used as as a source here. You also use this site as a reference for saying "Spondylosis and Osteoarthritis are common place in older dogs." but there's no place on that site where that's actually stated. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

1You must understand that not the standard is copyrighted.IT'S THE SAME ALL OVER THE WORLD. You can just copy it because it's the same.The United States Gov. has an official site too but it doesn't mean that you can't copy the constitution ! ! !

2. So, you want to ad hamburger pictures on a article about dogs??

3. The numbers on the health section were the national OFA (Orthopedic Foundation for Animals)ranks. Read it ! !

4. I used a bit Dogbreedinfo but it is a lot better sources than those earlier posted.

5. Those diseases are on this site, look after them.k84m97 (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but those ranks mean nothing. There's no point in putting information into an article if only a handful of people will understand it. That information could theoretically be worked in if we could give it some actual meaning. What do the normal and abnormal columns mean? And Dogbreedinfo isn't better than a lot of the sources - it's unreliable. And I did look at the page that was linked. I searched down for 'Spondylosis' and 'Osteoarthritis' (and also 'Arthritis') and found nothing. It's not up to me to look through your sources; the burden of proof is on the person adding the text. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case you should make clear what those values mean because we understand them. They are the same all over the USA. But you just revert all the texts and write lie about my edits like I used copyrighted sites like the Canadian Government's statistics, an other site which I don't even cited. About spondyosis in APBT you can find informations here Lamb CR. The canine lung. In: Thrall DE (Ed). Textbook of Veterinary Diagnostic Radiology, 2nd edition. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co, 1994. but maybe you will cry again that this is too complicated for you and you don't understand it.k84m97 (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Also your current edits are lie, you say that APBT "tends to have a high incidence of hip dysplasia" this is a lie, my source from the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals clearly stated that they are ranked at 26 OFA, you cited a source which doesn't exists Page Not Found. I can't wait for a moderator because this is vandalism.k84m97 (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you may want to tone down your attacks on me. The new Health section I added uses references 10 and 11; the one you're complaining about is #12. And you should check the source on #11, as this article does actually reflect what's in the source. As to your OFA link, 26 out of the 153 does make it relatively popular - though making a judgment based on that source would be original research. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So, this wil be the new health section: "The average life expectancy of an American pit bull terrier is about twelve years.[10] The breed tends to have a high incidence of hip dysplasia." How long have you benn in this breed?k84m97 (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OFA results are accepted in the USA.It's not a research project, it's a database used by the AKC, UKC ADBA and FCI.k84m97 (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Nowhere did I say that this is the entire health section. It's really only a start, but any text that is added should be verifiable and accurately reflect the source. And again, we could theoretically use the OFA results if we could provide some actual meaning to them aside from "OFA rank:12, Percent Abnormal 9.1%, Percent Normal 81.8%". Adding that to an article means nothing to someone who isn't very well versed on OFA statistics. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Side note - you've now informed five six different admins about this conversation. Are you going to just keep campaigning for your cause? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

NO, I want to improve this article but you always revert others edits. Why you revert? Where you find a flout try to correct it. Don't remove the whole contribution. You removed the pictures, someone who do not know the breed now have no clue how they looked 100 years ago. You also removed the Standard (the officialbreed description) which was original. You removed the whole History and a big part of it was very well documented from Colby's book. Also the Health section was well written. I just want to share information with others about these breeds. You aren't really interested since you remove all the edits instead of correct them.k84m97 (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that a large portion of your edit was identified as being from a copyrighted source. It doesn't matter if you took it from another article here - all that means is that it should be removed from that page as well. But we have rules here that we have to follow. You can't take a whole page that is well sourced (there are references for almost all the sentences) and replace it with unsourced text. By doing so, you're drastically reducing the quality of the article. Having said that, I'm going to try to work your edits into the article, but with actual sources and without all that copyright infringement. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Break

So here, I've added in some parts of the text you included. And I added a link to the standard in the External links section. I think that's a better place for it; it'd be too much to give the whole standard in the article, and if people are curious about it they can follow the link. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pit Bull--NOT a body type but a breed

Why is there an entire article called "pitbull"?? It says that a pitbull is not a breed but a body type. When people say pit bull, they mean the one and only American Pit Bull Terrier. This article on the apbt is way too short, just goes to show what the media does to a good breed. I've tried to make this article bigger before but people keep on reverting and making it shorter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.27.162 (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in today's world, the term "pit bull" has come to refer to all bully breeds. Like it or not, that's the way it is now. Any dog that looks like an APBT is considered a pit bull. 71.31.30.126 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier

The irish staffordshire bull terrier whether or not its a breed of its own should have its own page not put as a link to the APBT.Though ISBT may be used on the APBT occasionally its a name closer to the staffordshire bull terrier whether or not it is the same or a breed that came from the staffie. At the very least it should have a section of its own in the staffordshire bull terrier page regardless what one feels about the breed name or nickname whatever you wish to call the irish staffie.The controversy caused the term in the world of dog fanciers cant just be deleted ignored and then used as a nickname for the 3 main pitbull breeds regardless of what you feel about it. Its just a name for a dog for gods sake its ridiculous how people take it so seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dman31619 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Demodex Mange to Health

I added a Demodex Mange section into the Health section because it is one of the main health issues in American Pitbull Terrier. Legendarygottyline (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Puppy Picture

That is not an APBT. It looks to be a large breed mix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.57.154 (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

i agree. the puppy picture on the deck is absolutely NO an ABPT - it looks more alike to a Vizsla. no wonder the average person cannot identify a PB - Wiki community can't either!

Comparatively Speaking

The article, as of 12/03/04, is not entirely egregious. Some effort has been made toward a critical appraisal of the breed but a lot more could be done. And then Wiki should lock it down. Compare The Pet Wiki (no affiliation with Wikipedia- I hope!-) discussing both branches of the pit bull : "... today both breeds are bred for gentleness." !!! Orthotox (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)