Talk:Pit bull/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon as source

The book Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon is to date I believe the only book on the subject of the pit bull which covers history and the controversy published by a major publishing house. Reading through the book, it raises several points which could be used to fill in gaps in this article, and provide a more reliable, authorative overview than some of the disparate news covered.

So the issue I'd like to raise is: is this source reliable for these claims, and should it be given more weight than some of the recently added sources? (Time, Sports Illustrated, etc)

This isn't the exact wording I'd like to include, but rather a rough gist of what is being said, that could be appropriate for the article. The points are:

For History section:

• Mars Wisdom Panel is able to match the DNA of more than 250 breeds, but the American pit bull terrier is not one of them due to extensive mixed-breeding and lack of pure bloodlines
• across the United States pit bulls heavily used in advertisement campaigns during the 1920s, not because the dogs were believed to be menacing, but because they were thought to be so friendly and appealing to the “average Joe.”
• American Staffordshire terrier and the Staffordshire bull terrier had been bred for dog shows since the mid-1930s
• pit bull reputation as "dangerous dog" begins in late 1970s with public outcry over dogfighting
• that the pit bull was once called a “nanny dog” or a “nursemaid dog" is a myth that originated in the 1970s
• Once the pit bull was portrayed as an “inner-city dog,” it became a magnet for racial fears about crime and the American underclass.
• Bad publicity only made pit bulls more popular among the people who wanted dangerous dogs
• "Early in the 1980s, reporters hit on a formula for pit bull stories that immediately drew readers into heated arguments. It presented the dogs in terms of opposing forces—good/bad, nature/nurture, villain/victim—behind an interrogatory headline"
• terms “crack cocaine” and “pit bull” were linked in the media extensively from 1986 to 1990, the legend of the urban pit bull would become a literal companion piece to America’s failed war on drugs: the number of crack stories that appeared in The New York Times increased from forty-three at the end of 1985 to more than three hundred in 1986

For dog attack risk section:

• Veterinarians, animal behaviorists, and public health experts, including those at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), are virtually unanimous in their denunciation of BSL on the grounds that it is both cruel and ineffective
• the AKC does not register either the American pit bull terrier or the American bully, so their statistics cannot be used for estimating the overall number of pit bulls
• Most dog bite studies conducted around the world after 1958 Parrish study would find nearly identical patterns of dog bite behavior - "it was not possible to single out an individual breed as being particularly vicious"
• No researcher has yet located an “aggression gene” or a set of aggression genes, despite years of genomic analysis
• a number of studies have confirmed that dogs lash out most frequently from fear and anxiety, not “rage.”
• first paper that describes pit bulls as "disproportionately" dangerous Pinckney and Kennedy paper from 1982
• in June 1986, Franklin Loew, dean of Tufts University’s School of Veterinary Medicine held workshop “Dog Aggression and the Pit Bull Terrier.”, which concluded that the press’s coverage of pit bulls was misleading the public - direct quote from workshop: "The media maintain the state of hysteria by reporting any pit bull attack but ignoring incidents involving other breeds. Under these circumstances it becomes increasingly difficult to present a calm and reasoned argument." and "the available data did not support the claim that pit bull terrier–type dogs were overrepresented among biting animals." - animal control records say german shepherd topped bite lists at the time
• retired surgeon William Eckman killed in 1987 by two dogs, triggers public outcry, prompting Ohio legislators to pass a bill declaring all pit bulls to be “vicious"
• Randall Lockwood, reverses his position in his "Are ‘Pit Bulls’ Different? An Analysis of the Pit Bull Terrier Controversy" paper, which was quoted in nearly every major pit bull news story of the 1980s and appeared on the 700 club - says "The insanity over pit bulls is why I got out of the dog bite business, all the media wanted to do was publish data tables out of context. None of the real facts made any difference to anybody. It just became too crazy." "Not only are fatal dog attacks a minuscule representation of the total dog population and of the total pit bull population, they’re a minuscule representation of the dog bite population" lockwood no longer believes in concept of dangerous breeds
• numerous papers presented in (human) medical literature that make physically impossible and claims not in presented citations like 1989 Baack paper "Once [pit bulls] have their victim in a hold, they do not merely maintain the ‘bite,’ but continue to grind their premolars and molars into the tissue while the canine teeth stabilize the hold" - which perpetuate themselves through citations
• "in the quest for journalistic balance, many reporters have given DogsBite.​org and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention equal airtime, framing the issue as though two scientifically rigorous institutions just happen to disagree"PearlSt82 (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Dickey is a pit bull owner and a pit bull advocate. She is not an expert on dogs (not even on pit bulls), is not a historian, and not a scientific academic. She is a generic writer. Judging by the extremely professional publicist launch of her very first (and only) book, the book was probably commissioned. Enough of the claims in her book are ridiculous enough ("nanny dog"?) to NOT seek to raise Dickey to the status of 'expert' for a Wikipedia article that has already been contentious for years. I wouldn't attempt to insert Dickey into this article unless your purpose is to further unbalance POV in the Pit bull article. Tell me you're not serious about lobbying to include her as an expert here. Normal Op (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The idea that pit bulls were ever called "nanny dogs" is a myth, and this comes idea up from time to time again - this is the only source I know that discusses that. WP:IRS states "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable" and "For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper" - this book has been reviewed and the author profiled in Psychology Today, New York Times, National Geographic, WRBH, and Manhattan Book Review. And yes, I would like to use this book for this article - if no consensus can be reached here on reliablity, we can do an RSN to settle the issue. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this book would be considered generally reliable for this topic at WP:RSN. Of course, context matters, and if there are WP:RS that disagrees, we try to WP:DUE, RS does not mean unfailable, etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Right - as I'm sure you're aware, this is a rather lengthy content dispute, and I'd like to sort out the ground floor reliability of this source first before sorting out WP:DUE issues. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think it's generally reliable for this topic, based on the reception you linked, [1] etc. It doesn't say Professor of dogs, but a Visiting Lecturer in Journalism and Public Policy MFA (Nonfiction Writing) should be able to write a decent book. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@PearlSt82: regarding the CDC's alleged position on BSL, can you source this to the CDC itself, instead of Bronwen Dickey? Geogene (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, regarding your claim that there is no known "aggression gene", this is a fairly gross misunderstanding of genetics. There is no single gene that produces any behavior, behavior is an aggregate phenomenon from many thousands of genes. There is no one aggression gene just like there is no herding gene, no pointing gene, no retrieving gene, and no barking gene? Do you deny that there are breeds that herd, point, retrieve, and bark more than others? If Dickey is using this pseudoscientific argument as a talking point then the book is probably not RS. Geogene (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't my claim, its Dickey's, and she doesnt say a "single gene", the summary I posted above literally says "or a set of aggression genes". It also says they have not been located, which appears to be true, according to recent research into canine genetics and aggression:

• Genetics of canine behavior: A review
• Genetic mapping of canine fear and aggression
• Association of dopamine‐ and serotonin‐related genes with canine aggression

All seem to suggest that there is a high degree of genetic variancy between distant breeds and that no one set of genes has been identified across breeds to the point where you can acurately say that there is one specific loci for all dog breeds, or that one breed ranks as the most aggressive. Regarding "pointing" and such, the "Genetic mapping of canine fear and aggression" explicitly says that pointing is a much simpler behavior, and the loci have been identified. ("A landmark GWAS from 2008 reported many loci and five candidate genes associated with the following behavioral traits: herding, boldness, excitability, pointing, and trainability"). As all the sources note that aggression is a much more complicated issue, I don't think the comparison between the two is fair, in and of itself.

Regarding the CDC, this comes from the 2000 Sacks paper, a CDC researcher who has published extensively on the issue, which was published in the JAVMA that says "Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog's breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.". PearlSt82 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Whoever is making the pseudoscientific claim about genetics, that person is wrong. Claiming that different genes do different things in different breeds is also irrelevant to the question of whether dog behavior is primarily genetic (it is), and whether different breeds of dogs tend to consistently behave in specific ways (they do). If Dickey made the claim then Dickey is not reliable. Also, a researcher that works at the CDC =/= the CDC. Geogene (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Where is your source for any of this, specifically that aggression genes have been located, and that pit bulls consistently behave more aggressive because of it? For the CDC, I would not object to quantifying this position statement with "Jeffrey Sacks, a researcher at the CDC". PearlSt82 (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I have not claimed that aggression genes have been located. Where is your source for saying that genetics and breed have no impact on dog behavior? You have none, because your claim is ludicrous. And why are you quoting a CDC researcher on a question of Constitutional law? BSL laws have been tested in court before, and stood. Geogene (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The Dickey source is saying that aggression genes have not been located, so if you agree, I'm not sure what your issue is with this point. The AVMA says "breed is a poor sole predictor of aggressiveness" and the ASVAB] says "An examination of stringent, state-regulated compulsory temperament tests administered in Lower Saxony, Germany, found that 95% of the population of 415 dogs of “dangerous breeds” reacted appropriately to test situations.8,12 When “friendly breeds” were tested, their scores were similar, exposing the fallacy that targeted breeds presumed to be dangerous were, in fact, no more dangerous than breeds considered to be friendly.13 Breed alone is not predictive of the risk of aggressive behavior. Dogs and owners must be evaluated individually". For the CDC, I just posted the entire quote. The bit regarding Constitutional law is before many of those cases were tried (was released in 2000) and is not relevant to the claim that is recommending against BSL. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether the aggression genes have been located or not? What is your argument for including it in the article? It sounds like you want to substitute the question of whether aggression genes have been found in dogs for whether aggression in dogs is heritable, which I think only muddles the issue. Also, breed is an excellent predictor of aggression because pitbulls are responsible for the most serious dog bite trauma. [2]. Geogene (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Primary studies like that only identify dogs from a single intake center over a single point in time. When large dog populations are analyzed, again from the AVSAB: "In Winnipeg, Manitoba, there was no difference in the incidence of dog bite injury hospitalizations prior to or following the enact-ment of BSL.27 A cross-Canada study published in 2013 also concluded that there was no difference in the dog bite incidences between municipalities with and without breed-specific legislation." If pitbulls are genetically inherent to be responsible for the most serious dog bite trauma, then when the pit bull population of an area is reduced to near-zero, you would expect the overall dog bite incidences and severe incidences would go down. This been demonstrated not to be the case. Likewise, the AVMA states that "controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous". Wikipedia should not be making inferences from raw statistics - this is what interpretive expert secondary bodies are for. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It's from a peer reviewed medical journal, which is more reliable than opinion pieces/position statements from an advocacy org. Geogene (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Dog bite injuries to the face: Is there risk with breed ownership? A systematic review with meta-analysis, Essig 2019. Normal Op (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

This a position statement by the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior and a literature review by the American Veterinary Medical Association. Neither are advocacy organizations, and per WP:MEDRS, "Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies." PearlSt82 (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

A position statement by a veterinary org wouldn't pass the MEDRS standard if it applies. The peer reviewed medical journal, discussing human injuries caused by dogs, is the better source. Geogene (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The argument against every medical study has always been "But MEDRS says..." while pushing AVMA as RS. Normal Op (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Why? Are not veterinarians and animal behaviorist the relavant professionals for animal anatomy and animal behavior issues? The medical journal is still a primary source - the source Normal Op posted is secondary review. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

We're talking not only about animal behavior, but the role pit bulls play in (human) public health. Geogene (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course, but the two go hand in hand, right? How you do you reconcile this bit "In the 26,000 bites reviewed from the literature, 60.1% of the time a breed was not identified, which is consistent with other reports12. This accounts for several scenarios including those designated as mixed breed. This is also consistent with the previous statement that roughly 40% of dog bites are from the family dog in which the breed is most likely known." from the study Normal Op posted with the idea that pits are inherently the most dangerous? In otherwords, if you can't accurately identify breed of 60% of the cases in the medical literature, and the veterinary and animal behavior literature says that the breed is no more aggressives and has demonstratively not caused more dog bite incidences when the population is reduced to near-zero, how do you make a straight-forward claim that pit bulls are the most aggressive? PearlSt82 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"not identified" =/= "impossible to discern" Are we second guessing the Journal of Orthopedic Trauma review board? And didn't the Ohio Supreme Court (Ohio v. Anderson, 1991) affirm that most people can visually identify a pit bull? Geogene (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Again - primary vs secondary. The study Normal Op posted is a comprehensive secondary review from the medical side. For visual identification, studies more recent than 1991, including one from UF concluded that visual identification is accurate about 27% of the time, which is replicated in two studies conducted by Voith, one in 2009 and the other in 2013. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

A 2018 paper found that visual identification is accurate 68% of the time, that the more pitbull DNA a dog has, the more likely shelter workers are to ID it as a pitbull, and also the less likely the dog is to be adopted [3]. Pitbulls are visually identifiable. Geogene (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a slight misrepresentation of the study. It says "staff at SDHS was able to successfully match at least one breed in the genetic heritage of 67.7% of dogs tested; however their agreement fell to 10.4% when asked to identify more than one breed", and "In total when we consider the complexity of shelter dog breed heritage and the failure to identify multiple breeds based on visual identification coupled with our inability to predict how these breeds then interact within an individual dog, we believe that focusing resources on communicating the physical and behavioral characteristics of shelter dogs would best support adoption efforts.". Only 4.9% of the dogs identified as purebreds. I don't think adoptability factors in here. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

If pit bull is considered a breed here, then it's 68% accurate. But some breeds may be more or less identifiable in shelter mixes than others. But the data shows that DNA recognition and visual recognition of pit bull mixes give consistent results [4]. Geogene (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

As for adoptability, it is interesting that dogs with larger amounts of pit bull DNA are less likely to be adopted. Do you suppose that's because potential adopters recognize pit bulls as undesirable, or do you suppose it's because behavioral problems are directly correlated with progressively higher levels of pit bull DNA? I think it must be one of these or the other. Geogene (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Like with much of these issues, the answer to this question appears to be quite complex. This paper from 2016 examines this quite in-depth, and notes that the issue is not all genetic. One of the studies indicated that when pit-bull type dogs are presented as being from unknown breed, their adoptability increases. Some relevant excerpts: "While lookalike breed labels were not found to have any impact on adopters’ perceptions compared to leaving dogs unlabeled, labels of pit bull breeds did reduce perceived attractiveness. Based on research into impression formation processes [41], it is likely that this negative impact occurred when reading the label and then accessing known attributes associated with the category of “pit bull.” The potency of the pit bull label suggests that this negatively perceived information had a stronger influence on potential adopters’ perceptions than more positive perceptions of lookalike breed labels", "In Study 3, we found that pit-bull-type dogs were seen more positively than lookalikes when the dogs were unlabeled. This suggests that despite our matching efforts, an interaction with kennel behavior may have occurred which influenced participants’ attractiveness scores.", and "In the shelter, removing breed labels was associated with increased adoptions and reduced length of stay for all breed groups, particularly pit-bull-type dogs". PearlSt82 (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

And furthermore, I don't think there are any papers which say something to the effect that behavioral problems are directly correlated with progressively higher levels of pit bull DNA. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

If it's impossible to visually identify a pit bull, how is it possible that potential adopters discriminate against dogs with higher levels of pit bull DNA? also, this new source you gave acknowledges that pits are inherently aggressive toward other animals, that they are particularly destructive in this regard, and that this was built into the breed. With the Pit Bull Terrier’s bullbaiting and dogfighting history, this breed often demonstrates an increased propensity for aggression towards other dogs and other animals, with an intensity of destructiveness in its attacks, which likely contributes to such perceptions [13,25]. [5] Geogene (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Presumably the dogs with higher pit-bull DNA as identified by the 2018 paper were labelled as pit bulls. The 2016 paper says that visual appearance did not affect adoptability, but labelling the dog and presenting it as a "pit bull" did. Dog-dog aggression is different than dog-human aggression, which is made clear by several sources. Breed differences in canine aggression is one such paper that covers the difference. I dont think it is at all disputed that many pit bulls come from dogfighting lineage, and that many were bred specifically for dog fighting. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Another paper from 2015 states "One in five dogs genetically identified with pit bull heritage breeds were missed by all shelter staff." and "One in three dogs lacking DNA for pit bull heritage breeds were labeled pit bull-type dogs by at least one staff member." PearlSt82 (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

And one more from the AVMA in 2012 discussing the issues with visual id of dogs of unknown parentage. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

And where do you think the information on dog breed is obtained when it's part of a hospital record? Since most dog bite are from family dogs, when the family comes in with their child or spouse and the intake nurse says "What happened?", and the person says "our pit bull bit them", and that is written down, are you really going to argue that the owners didn't know what kind of dog they had? Normal Op (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

From the study you posted, only 40% of bites are from family dogs. The other unknown 60% appears to be from unfamiliar dogs. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

And the Voith studies were a joke (as previously mentioned on the talk page). Normal Op (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Normal Op - thanks for posting that study - from the text: "Breed specific information may shed light on the risk to own certain types of dogs, but this has not currently been substantiated as a single predictive factor", "The circumstances causing a dog to bite are multifactorial and may have been influenced by behavioral and/or situational factors as much as genetics. The occurrence of a bite is influenced not only by breed behavior tendencies, but also the behavior of the victim (most commonly a child), the parents, and the dog owner", "Our study demonstrates that canines with brachycephalic skull anatomy, as well as large dogs between 66-100 pounds, have an increased risk of biting as well as an increased risk for causing severe tissue damage", "In the 26,000 bites reviewed from the literature, 60.1% of the time a breed was not identified, which is consistent with other reports", "Our study also acknowledges the significant risk of biting with the mixed breed population, which creates a dilemma with identification." and "Certain physical characteristics, especially those that make a dog appear physically aggressive, may cause people to identify a dog as a “pit-bull”. Because of this broad generalization, and lack ofregistration as a "pure breed" it is not possible to know how many dogs in a given region would fall into the category of a pit-bull62. It is impossible to know how many mixed breed dogs were pit-bulls, pit-bull mixes, or fell into this category by physical description alone.". PearlSt82 (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

When the "single institution" studies start rolling in from all around the country, and they all say the same thing, then you cannot use the argument that these are "from a single intake center over a single point in time". At some point, the quantity of contemporary/recent studies from diverse geographic regions becomes the voice of the medical community all across the land. Brice 2018, Alizadeh 2017, Golinko 2016, Prendes 2016. Normal Op (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

And quit nitpicking language within each study to support your other viewpoints, when the whole point was to show that there are contemporary studies pointing to deaths disproportionatly from pit bull type dogs. You are intentionally obfuscating while pretending to clarify. Normal Op (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Its important to read beyond the abstract. That study isn't showing what you claim it is. And again, per WP:MEDRS - "Cite reviews, don't write them." PearlSt82 (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: ""Breed specific information may shed light on the risk to own certain types of dogs, but this has not currently been substantiated as a single predictive factor" Nobody is claiming that it is the only factor. Nevertheless, pits are the main driver of human injuries from dog bites. Geogene (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"Nevertheless, pits are the main driver of human injuries from dog bites" might be true for a certain place and a certain time. Studies analyzing populations where pit bulls have been reduced due to BSL have not demonstrated any difference in the overall bite incidences. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Time source and weight

As written in the lede, it is both undue and a misrepresentation of the source. The text currently reads: "Independent organizations have published statistics based on hospital records showing pit bulls are responsible for more than half of dog bite incidents among all breeds despite comprising 6% of pet dogs". The text in the article is: "Pit bulls make up only 6% of the dog population, but they’re responsible for 68% of dog attacks and 52% of dog-related deaths since 1982, according to research compiled by Merritt Clifton, editor of Animals 24-7, an animal-news organization that focuses on humane work and animal-cruelty prevention." As such this does not support the idea that "independent organizations" have published statistics - this is the work of a single person, Merritt Clifton. As noted above, the AVMA states: Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite.7 Invariably the numbers will show that dogs from popular, large breeds are a problem. This should be expected because big dogs can physically do more damage if they do bite and any popular breed has more individuals that could bite. Dogs from small breeds also bite and are capable of causing severe injury. There are several reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds. First, the breed of the biting dog may not be accurately recorded, and mixed-breed dogs are commonly described as if they were purebreds. Second, the actual number of bites that occur in a community is not known, especially if they did not result in serious injury. Third, the number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed and existing licensing data is then incomplete.7 Breed data likely vary between communities, states, or regions, and can even vary between neighborhoods within a community. Should the Time source reflecting the work of one person be given the same weight as the position statements of an organization like the AVMA? And when the statistics are as fraught with error as the AVMA and other sources state, should we be publishing Merritt Clifton's work in Wikipedia's voice, especially when sources like the Dickey book (p. 215) state that he has no relevant credentials and that his works are entirely self-published? PearlSt82 (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this actually speaks to the core nature of the article and the disagreement.

In short:

1. Should we give higher weight to the positions of AVMA, ASVAB, ASPCA, etc, which say that dog bite statistics are unreliable and breed is not a factor in aggression, and treat sources like Time which rely on the work of one person as being a misapplication of statistics? Or,
2. Should we give sources like Time greater weight and treat the statistics as absolutes, and treat the AVMA, ASVAB, ASPCA as biased sources attempting to explain away the statistics? PearlSt82 (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I suspect one could easily argue that the AVMA, ASVAB, and ASPCA do have biases that Time doesn't; the ASPCA is an advocacy group. I don't find Dickey reliable for reasons I just posted in another section. Geogene (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

And I suspect one could easily argue that Merritt Clifton has biases that the AVMA and ASVAB don't. That doesn't tackle the issue of weight. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Merritt Clifton may have his shortcomings, but at least he has several things in his favor: he has worked as a journalist on dog and other animal-related issues for decades, he has been extensively published by others and quoted by others for decades, and he has been following and collecting information about dog bite attacks himself for decades (I believe his wife was an Animal Control Officer in Florida). By comparison, Dickey is a one-shot wonder; 2016... then poof. Like I said, I'm convinced Dickey's book was commissioned. Dickey's book is Swiss-cheesed full of so many fact holes that your attempts to raise that book from the dead into elevated reliable-source and expert status for Wikipedia citations is beyond even you, PearlSt82. I don't get this recent attempt of yours to create a reliability-ranked list of works on the Talk page of 'pit bull'. We already know you favor citations from all of the organizations that VanKavage has successfully lobbied over the years, but that doesn't mean other sources aren't reliable and cannot be used as citations to present other (reliable and expert) points of view in a Wikipedia article. Normal Op (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Where has he been published by others? PearlSt82 (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, are you making the claim that the AVMA, AVSAB, and CDC researcher Jeffrey Sacks have been compromised by Van Kavage? PearlSt82 (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is my attempt to summarize and group the current sources. This does not include the Dickey book:

1. Veterinary sources reject the idea that any breed of dog is inherently disproportionately dangerous. Breeds that represent top the biting list changes over time as demonstrated by a paper in JAVMA and that BSL shown not to be effective - no change in biting incidences has been shown by multiple studies referenced by AVSAB when pit-bull populations approach near-zero. The AVMA states that controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous, and a 2013 JAVMA paper concludes that breed is not a factor in dog bite related fatalities.
2. Merritt Clifton's Animals 24-7 and Colleen Lynn's dogsbite.org are independent self-published organizations whose statistics frequently get picked up by popular press outfits like Time or local newspapers even though the accuracy of statistics is disputed by several groups, as mentioned by an AVMA article, and Radio Canada. Furthermore, articles in the popular press like Sports Illustrated about the dog's dangerous reputation have been published since the 1980s.
3. Dozens of primary medical studies exist, mostly presenting data from a hospital in X city in date range from YYYY to ZZZZ. A review of these studies exists in International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, which identifies major problems in collecting data this way, namely that for more than 60% of the biting cases, dog breed is unknown. Similar issues of identification dog breed are addressed in the 2013 JAVMA analysis of fatalities. Visual identification of dog breed has been shown to be unreliable, as demonstrated by papers in The Veterinary Journal, AVMA, PLoS One, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science and American Journal of Sociological Research
4. Genetic research shows that dog-human aggression is complex and not fully understood from a genetic standpoint. Three studies on the genetics of canine aggression in Genes, Brain and Behavior, BMC Genomics and Acta Veterinaria Brno all do not mention pit bulls and identify other breeds as having problems prone to aggression, particularly the Cocker Spaniel. The notion that pit bull type dogs are genetically prone to dog-human aggression is not supported in sources.

Properly weighting these sources should get us closer to resolving the content dispute. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This is using WP:SYN to try to discredit peer reviewed medical journals. Geogene (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

What stated above is not in source text? WP:MEDRS says we should not be using primary studies from medical journals, but rather secondary reviews, which is the linked article in International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology that notes several issues with metholodology when it comes to tracking by breed and making inferences on such. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Does MEDRS apply here? If it does, should we be using veterinary journals at all? What about Dickey? Geogene (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

If you're making claim about effects to human health using medical journals, then yes, I would say it does. Per Wikipedia:Biomedical information, the best sources for "other animals" is "veterinary textbooks or review articles" - of which the AVMA literature review clearly falls under. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

And as for Merritt Clifton, if reliable sources treat his work as reliable, then it is reliable for most of WP's purposes. Geogene (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

What about when different sources both treat him reliably and unreliably as is the case here? Should that discrepency be noted? PearlSt82 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Are there sources that criticize him specifically? Geogene (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Radio Canada and Huffington Post, which I would assume are roughly the same level of reliability as a publication like time. Additionally, the Dickey book goes into it in substantitive depths, but you had questions about the reliability of that one, so we can set aside for now. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence in that Radio Canada piece, translated by Google into English, says, Statistics on dog bites from anti-pit bull groups are frequently cited in Canadian and US media as reliable sources. So it's generally considered reliable, then. Geogene (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you read past the first sentence? "The two groups in question, Animals 24-7 and DogsBite.org, are openly campaigning for a ban on pit bulls. They regularly publish statistics on deaths and bites caused by dogs. However, their data represents only a tiny portion of serious attacks, and that of Animals 24-7 has several errors." PearlSt82 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It matters a great deal that the media generally find his numbers credible. I've seen controversial sources proclaimed RS for this reason alone. Geogene (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Aggression toward other animals

One of the sources discussed yesterday [6] says, With the Pit Bull Terrier’s bullbaiting and dogfighting history, this breed often demonstrates an increased propensity for aggression towards other dogs and other animals, with an intensity of destructiveness in its attacks, which likely contributes to such perceptions [13,25]. The article doesn't mention any of this, but should cover both the aggression and the devastating force pitbulls use in attacks. Geogene (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Fixed link by edit. Geogene (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

No objections to including propensity for dog-dog aggression with dogfighting text, as this is quite well document. I do object to "the devastating force pitbulls use in attacks", as there is no source that supports pit bulls inherently bite harder than other breeds of similar size. The International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology review notes that dogs which bite the most severe are the ones with the largest skulls. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The text I quoted makes it clear that pit bull attacks are notable for their violence. Geogene (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I would support "intensity", not "force". I know it sounds nitpicky, but there is a difference. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

DNA and breed correlation

The article contains the following statement, Studies have found that when people involved in dog rescue, adoption, and regulation identify the breed of a dog of mixed parentage, this identification did not correlate with the DNA analysis of that dog. This statement is contradicted by its sources, eg, [7], which says that 1/3 of dogs having no identifiable pitbull DNA were labeled as pitbulls by "at least one" shelter worker, and that 1/5 of dogs with pitbull DNA were not labelled as pitbulls. You cannot honestly claim that there is "no correlation" between shelter labels and DNA identified breed when shelters are correctly identifying 2/3 of dogs of dogs with no pitbull DNA as non-pits, and are identifying 4/5 of pits as pits. The words "no correlation" mean that shelters are identifying breeds at random, which is clearly not happening. Geogene (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This study is seriously flawed since they used a DNA testing service that does NOT test for American Pit Bull Terrier. Mars Wisdom Panel is notoriously mute on the subject of APBT, but is continuously and repeatedly used by all NCRC-contracted "research". Embark DNA testing has long since been able to recognize the difference, genetically, between American Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and American Pit Bull Terrier, but for some reason every single one of PearlSt82's preferred studies use only Mars. From this study:

• "Mars Veterinary contributed DNA testing services for breed identification."
• "Limitations of our study include unknown sensitivity and specificity of the DNA breed testing and lack of a DNA test for American pit bull terrier."
• "However, the largest testing service does not offer a DNA test for identification of American pit bull terriers."
• "American pit bull terrier and pit bull were not included in the 226 breed signatures."
• "There is no standardized breed signature for the mixed breed dog known as the ‘pit bull,’ and the surrogate DNA breed signatures used in this study were for the American Staffordshire terrier and the Staffordshire bull terrier."

There is no APBT in Mars because APBT is not an AKC recognized breed. And any person can go watch an AKC dog show, watch the American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier classes and notice that neither breed looks anything like any of the standard variations of APBTs or even backyard "pit bulls". And yes, you can watch those classes via youtube. Even to an untrained eye those AKC breeds don't look anything like the "pit bulls" that are found in shelters today. So any study that fails to test for the actual breed(s) of dog showing up in shelters yet purports that shelter workers cannot tell that a dog is a breed(s) that isn't being DNA-tested for... geez people. This is fake science if I ever saw any.

— Normal Op (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

From the study: "Dogs were coded as ‘pit bull-type’ if the breed American Staffordshire terrier or Staffordshire bull terrier was identified to comprise at least 12.5% of the breed signature." PearlSt82 (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That source says "Even when observing the same dogs at the same time, shelter staff had only moderate agreement with breed designations." as one of the higher level findings. Would you support the text "Studies have found that when people involved in dog rescue, adoption, and regulation identify the breed of a dog of mixed parentage, this identification does not always correlate with the DNA analysis of that dog"? PearlSt82 (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No. 120 dogs (this study) does not make a good study to present to the world as "results". Flawed studies (which these researchers were relying on — building upon — and which I can pick apart because every single one those studies used Mars Wisdom DNA testing) shouldn't be used to present such broad-stroke pronouncements. Normal Op (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

There are two other studies cited in text and other that come to similar conclusions are in JAAWS as well as the two Voith studies from 2009 and 2013 that you have already made your opinion clear about. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, are there any reliable sources which raise your concerns about these studies? PearlSt82 (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Then there's the ASPCA study with Richmond SPCA [8] where they found "staff were quite good at breed identification—correctly identifying 96% of the dogs in the study as having at least 25% of the [pit bull] breeds noted above." Normal Op (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

A consideration with that study is "As we anticipated that more of the dogs would not have bully-type breeds in their reports, we were not able to dive into the question of “he looks like a X but he really is a Y”—something that may still be worth exploring in order to better understand adopter choice" - which is something other papers specifically seek to address, as the study notes that "Out of the 91 dogs, only 4 dogs had none of these breeds in their DNA" as they were dealing with a population that is 95%+ pit bull. Would you happen to know why the study is no longer live on the web? PearlSt82 (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

My point was that your cherry-picked sources point to one conclusion, but there are others that conclude otherwise. Therefore, no you cannot use your flawed-study to pronounce a broad-stroke conclusion. Normal Op (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I cherry picked anything as the six studies I know of and posted more or less come to similar terms, and I was unaware of the one you just posted as it is not live on the web. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, are you now arguing we should be using ASPCA blogs as a reliable aource? You have made previous statements on this talk page indicating you feel otherwise about their reliabilty. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It's called link rot. I cannot second guess why aspcapro.org website removes their articles, but there are 19 citations to aspcapro.org in Wikipedia, and I checked the first 6 in the list... none are still online. Fortunately, the Wayback Machine has caught most of them and has provided us the IABot tool to easily resurrect old content. Also note that there is a difference between magazine blogs and self-published personal blogs. Are you saying ASPCA Pro website is a personal blog? The article was written by Dr. Emily Weiss who "has been with the ASPCA since 2005, most recently serving as vice president of its Research and Development team". Normal Op (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the reliability of the ASPCA at all, though organization blogs are typically considered less reliable than the publications from the organization itself - like for example their position on BSL. If the Richmond article is reliable enough to be used, so is their BSL position statement. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Right, Olson 2015 relied on Voith 2009 and 2013 for his study results. Voith's studies are even more egregious in their flaws. Olson even cited self-published book by Karen Delise, and every single study they "built upon" were NCRC-funded or commissioned studies. Talk about deciding upon an outcome and then coming up with "proof" that you're right. Junk science. Normal Op (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Bite pressure

This 2020 paper on bite pressure [9] says that biting force varies by breed, that some breeds of dog, including attack dogs, were selectively bred to produce devastating bites; and found (through modeling) that 1) brachycephalism is a driver of powerful bite ability in large dogs, and that 2) pits, rotts, and cane corsos have especially powerful bites, greater than 2,000 Newtons of force. Is this controversial? Geogene (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally literature states (including this paper) that the bite is stronger with a bigger skull. Some other papers in the area:

Calibration of estimated biting forces in domestic canids: comparison of post-mortem and in vivo measurements, Journal of Anatomy

Cranial dimensions and forces of biting in the domestic dog, Journal of Anatomy

Bite Forces and Their Measurement in Dogs and Cats Frontiers in Veterinary Science

Measurement of Bite Force in Dogs: A Pilot Study, Journal of Veterinary Dentistry

I think its important to note that these are all primary studies and while they all more or less say that skull size is the determining factor in strength of bites, they're all inconsistent in numbers. For example, the 2020 paper portrays 2000 N as an outlier result, whereas the paper "Calibration of estimated biting forces in domestic canids" regularly shows dogs larger than 20kg biting at this level of force, and on the other end, "Measurement of Bite Force in Dogs: A Pilot Study" doesn't show any dog biting higher than 1394 N. I'm not aware of any secondary source that digests this information, particularly as it relates to pit bulls - a particularly problematic area when it comes to assigning force by breed, as "pit bulls" is an umbrella term that can encompass dogs ranging from as small as 35 lb to as large as 120 lb. PearlSt82 (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@PearlSt82: This trend of questioning studies that reach one conclusion (breed-specific traits are relevant) and then forcing illogical claims from biased sources ("breed is impossible to identify") back into the article has to stop. This study presents explanatory and useful information that supplements, not contradicts, other available studies. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

First of all, the onus is on you, the person making the changes. Secondly, in regards to the content of your edits and why I reverted them: the AVMA doesn't "argue" that "that breed is a poor sole predictor of dog bites", they flat out state it in a peer-reviewed literature review. The issue regarding identification is also in a peer-reviewed journal, "Journal of Veterinary Behavior". WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to remove content from peer-reviewed secondary sources. For bite pressure, and the above sources, "A dog's bite strength is dependent on the size and strength of the dog, not its breed." is true. Pit bulls are not the only large breed dog, and studies have shown that pit bulls do not bite comparatively stronger than dogs of similar size. For the quote "The ASPCA said that, along with putative over-reporting, false reporting was a major contributor to public perceptions about the breed", this is directly attributed to the ASPCA, and not appearing in Wikivoice, and reflects the viewpoints of a major organization. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

References

@PearlSt82: WP:ONUS applies to users seeking inclusion of content, not exclusion of content. You are seeking to include material that I trimmed. And these contradictory conclusions from allegedly "peer-reviewed studies" in many cases are commissioned by advocacy organizations, which explains why the conclusions seem so detached from reality.

• The ASPCA is an advocacy organization. They are in the business of raising money to care for and adopting out pit bulls.
• The line about "bite being dependent on size" is ridiculous. Different breeds obviously entail different sizes. This is a borderline tautological statement that adds nothign to the article.
• "Breed is a poor sole predictor of dog bites" again, flies in the face of data from other sources, and is, surprise, from another "study" by an organization with an agenda.

I find it very concerning that obviously biased material is pushed into the article unquestioned and similarly reliable sources offering more neutral, different assessments are constantly met with objection. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

1. The ASPCA is a notable organization in this field and their activities encompass far more than pit bull rescue
2. This is relevant as there are misrepresentations of a pit bulls biting force compared to other breeds of similar size
3. "Breed is a poor sole predictor of dog bites" is from the American Veterinary Medical Association, the most prestigious veterinary organization and is the accreditation body for schools in the United States. This is hardly an "organization with an agenda".

These are all reliable expert organizations in the field. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The AMVA is closely aligned with the pit bull adoption/PR lobby and has released policy/advocacy statements on pit bulls. Like here, where they advocate against legislation or regulation of pit bulls specifically. They are not a neutral expert organization. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Critique about pit bull breeding origin

Regarding this point, it's actually incorrect. Pit bulls were originally bred to protect children, not for bull baiting and dog fighting. They're called "nanny dogs" for a reason after all. Dog fighting wouldn't even exist until much later. UlvaMoonWolf (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The nanny dog myth is completely false. There aren't any sources that mention it prior to 1970. Geogene (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

LOL. Citation needed. Citation needed indeed. Subject Matter Expert Supreme (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This sounds like some dedicated Facebook group's attempt at revisionism. We can't publish anything based on fringe ideas. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just plain not true. oknazevad (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Fifth Estate as an RS

This is not remotely a reliable source. Its a sensationalist piece of TV journalism that previously had to pay out the largest libel suit in Canadian history. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It's an award-winning CBC investigative journalism program. Whether it's "sensationalist," well, that's just the opinion of a tendentious single-purpose account. If you can demonstrate some consensus other than your own revert button, go ahead and do so, but my supply of good faith has run out. Geogene (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate you dropping the personal attacks. I've opened a discussion at RSN so consensus can form there in a neutral venue. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

"so there's a risk that the scientific literature on pit bulls has been influenced by money"

This is absolutely not present in the source cited and is OR as written. The full text of the cited source is: With such a small number of dog mauling cases and associated fatalities, it will remain diffi�cult to research whether breed-specific legislation is effective unless done on a national level over a period of several years.33 Furthermore, there is a lack of transparency within the current litera�ture surrounding breed-specific legislation in the United States. Advocates for and against breed�specific legislation rarely acknowledge when they receive funding or personal contributions from agencies that lobby on either side of the issue, and there are no efforts to promote such transparency. As a result, some of the most influential literature has received authorship from persons who have a high risk of bias, yet this is not disclosed.. PearlSt82 (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there's a risk that the scientific literature on pit bulls has been influenced by money is exactly what that source quote means. Thanks. Now, please stop kneejerk reverting every one of my edits to the article, I view it as disruption, and I will escalate this to DR if you do not stop. Geogene (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do escalate. That source is not saying that. Its saying that both sides may have undisclosed interests, and provides no evidence for this in its citations. Its a major stretch to go from this to ALL "the scientific literature" having being "influenced by money. PearlSt82 (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That's disingenuous because my text [10] does say it applies to both sides. And it clearly is talking about scientific literature relevant to pit bull hazards, in general. Geogene (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The last clause of the sentence you added, "so there's a risk that the scientific literature on pit bulls has been influenced by money", does not give that impression. If you said "so there's a risk that the scientific literature on pit bulls, as well as pro-BSL advocacy, has been influenced by money", that might be a step in the right direction, but its still major SYNTH when the paper cites only four papers, to add a sentence applying this to the entirety of scientific writing on pit bulls, especially when none of these papers are cited in the current article.PearlSt82 (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

But it clearly is referring to the scientific literature relevant to BSL, and I see little point in haggling over a precise wording while you're still claiming that the entire thing is SYNTH. Geogene (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Because there is a major difference between "some" (what the source states) and "all" (what your sentence implies). It also does not say "scientific". PearlSt82 (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

These are vexatious objections. When scientists refer to the "the literature," that's a haughty and archaic reference to the scientific literature relevant to their field. And, "the literature" can be thought of as a grammatically singular collective entity composed of many parts. One garbage paper can be thought of as a bad influence on the "the (scientific) literature," without implying that the entirety of the scientific literature was compromised. Geogene (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Would you object to Wikipedia:Third_opinion as a first step in the DR process if noone else chimes in a reasonable amount of time? I strongly disagree with your rationale, but Wikipedia is a consensus based site and this page is unfortunately not as watched as other controversial issues. I'd like to avoid endless back and forth if possible. PearlSt82 (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You don't need my approval to do that. Nevertheless, the source quote ....rarely acknowledge when they receive funding or personal contributions As a result, some of the most influential literature has received authorship from persons who have a high risk of bias, yet this is not disclosed. and the article quote there's a risk that the scientific literature on pit bulls has been influenced by money are exactly equivalent in meaning. and it's ridiculous (and disruptive) that you're wikilawyering this. Geogene (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Third opinion requires both editors to participate in good faith. If you feel like I'm being intractably disruptive, then file an ANI instead of making constant accusations of disruption coupled with threats and personal attacks. PearlSt82 (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

If you think these are PAs, then you can file at AN/I. It's hard not to notice that you're unreasonably aggressive toward my edits of this article. You continuously revert my additions, ALL of my additions, and we've had to file at two different noticeboards in just the last 12 hours, neither of which looks like it's currently going your way. Your last RfC (that I know of) didn't either. Geogene (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The EL noticeboard has one editor chiming in against you. The RSN noticeboard has one editor not expressing an opinion either way. The last RFC did not reach consensus. You are totally misreading discussions in the same way you are misreading sources. PearlSt82 (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

And there you are, interpreting no consensus as if it were a mandate to continue kneejerk reverts. One day that will catch up with you. Geogene (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

These reverts have nothing to do with the RFC. I've explained my rationale for all of them in detail. If you're not willing to resolve the issues in good faith using the dispute resolution process - of which I've offered the first steps to set up - then I'm not going to respond any further here until another editor chimes in. PearlSt82 (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That's good, because this whole debate has been pointless. Geogene (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Bailey et. al., Labradors, and dog bite trivia

I don't see the point of mentioning Labradors in this edit [11], considering that Labradors are only mentioned in passing in the paper (while German shepherds and pit bulls are mentioned in that study extensively). The study's main conclusion is that Pit bull–type and German Shepherd breeds are consistently implicated for causing the most serious injuries to patients in the United States across heterogeneous populations, and this remained consistent across multiple decades, that labs were #3 is basically dog bite trivia. Also this looks like Whataboutism, considering that labradors are the most popular dog breed in America and have been for the last 30 years. [12] Geogene (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Its more than a passing mention. From the abstract, before the sentence you quoted: The most common pure breed identified was German Shepherd, followed by Pit Bull–type breeds (i.e., American Staffordshire Ter�rier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bully), Labrador, Collie, and Rottweiler, respectively., from the body of the paper: For Labradors, we did see a trend of increasing bite frequency of 0.11 percent per year (95 percent CI, 0.000031 to 0.22 percent), In addition, three of the top five breeds we identi�fied as being responsible for severe dog bites (i.e., German Shepherds, Labradors, and Rottweilers) are perennial top 10 breeds registered with the American Kennel Club (which does not recog�nize Pit Bull Terriers). PearlSt82 (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

There are three mentions in nine and a half pages of journal text. Further, we see that in 2018, pits are causing about 50% of serious bites (figure 3) and that shepherds are causing <10% (figure 2), so how many bites do you think labs are causing if they're #3 overall? Unless it's a high percentage, isn't it misleading to even mention that? Geogene (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Based on the numbers in Table 2, between 4.7 and 25 percent. The authors clearly mention the top five breeds in the abstract and the body of the paper - as well as provide frequency analysis, so they clearly felt it was important to mention. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect hyperlink

In the second paragraph under the section entitled "Dog attack risk" there is a hypertext link reading "Labradors" that is intended (I can only assume) to redirect to the page on the dog breed of that name. However, the link actually leads to the Canadian geographic region of the same name. I do not have editing access for this article, so I cannot do it myself, but I suggest that someone who does should correct this. Dog Howard (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Dog Howard Thank you for noticing, I fixed it. If you stick around a little longer you'll soon be able to edit this article too. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should veterinary sources be weighted more than the popular press for lede and dog attack risk sections at Pit bull?

(relist) Should veterinary sources be given greater weight than the popular press for the lede and dog attack risk sections?PearlSt82 (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I am filing an RfC for this dispute, as there have been no further comments in more than a week. There have been previous unresolved disputes (see prior talk page sections) on how veterinary sources should be used in this article, specifically for facts, figures and statements pertaining to risk of injury to humans. I am arguing that veterinary sources are the authorative body in this area, whereas others have argued that they are inherently biased towards animals, and have been corrupted by the "pit bull lobby". In particular, I am referring to the following sources and their claims:

1. 2014 AVMA literature review that states that controlled studies have not identified pit bulls as disproportionately dangerous
2. 2001 JAVMA review of major studies over 40 years - states breeds that represent top the biting list changes over time and with makeup of dog populations
3. AVSAB position statement on BSL, references several studies that show no change in overall biting incidences when pit-bull populations approach near-zero
4. 2013 JAVMA paper concludes that breed is not a factor in dog bite related fatalities
5. 2017 Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science literature review which reviews 156 medical studies on dog bite-related injuries and demonstrates severe flaws in metholodogy of papers calculating breed risk by hospital intake statistics

Others have argued we should be giving higher weight to the popular press like Time and Sports Illustrated, which make the claims that pit bulls are inherently dangerous and that they bite the most, and we should be publishing raw statistics in wikivoice. In what fashion should the article handle the discrepancy between position statements/peer-reviewed literature reviews from veterinary organizations and articles in the popular press? PearlSt82 (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• No. We already have a policy about what is a reliable source. All of those organizations are animal-centric, whereas much coverage and many studies about pit bulls are related to public safety. It is the media ("popular press", as you devalue it) who covers people-centric medical studies, public safety issues, and legislative matters in language understandable for the lay person and without Wikipedia editors having to use primary sources (such as court cases, actual legislation, etc.). I am seriously concerned about this agenda you have to "rank" sources, basically deprecating all other sources (and viewpoints) and relegating them to be deleted. This page has repeatedly been tagged as not-NPOV over the years; this won't help the matter. Normal Op (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is a core component at coming to a NPOV resolution, hence the question, which I consider to be the core of the issue. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Read that policy again. Nothing in that section (Due and undue weight) tells us to "rank" sources, but instead cautions us to "avoid giving undue weight" to fringe topics and minority viewpoints. You cannot seriously be suggesting that all other viewpoints except veterinary and animal-centric organizations are fringe. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Normal Op (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I am suggesting these veterinary sources represent the consensus of mainstream relevant scientific literature, and that media outlets like Time and Sports Illustrated represent a minority opinion not represented by the relevant scholarly bodies. It is clear the veterinary sources and some media outlets do not agree, which is the point of the RfC, to decide the proper weight between the two. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You must be referring to this 2014 Time article; however, it cites six or more sources interviewed and covers other angles related to a particular pit bull attack; hardly a minority viewpoint. "Minority viewpoint" in the WP:DUE policy was referring to FRINGE, anyway. The 1987 Sports Illustrated article quotes even more people (I got tired of counting). Hardly FRINGE coverage. Both articles cover the topic in far more detail and depth (and both sides) moreso than contemporary articles. (Good journalism is harder to come by since the internet started displacing newspaper revenues.) It's just a different angle of coverage of a topic. One type of source doesn't (and shouldn't) supplant the other. Normal Op (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, these are indeed the Time and Sports Illustrated articles I'm referring to. WP:WEIGHT does not apply to just WP:FRINGE. Specifically, it says: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". I would argue these are the veterinary sources, as they are peer-reviewed and written by scholars in the relevant field. The policy goes on to say "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" - which I would argue represent the views of Dogsbite.org/Animals 24-7, which are picked up by media outlets like that Time source. The views of DBO/A247 are not peer-reviewed, not written by experts in the field, and are not replicated by any of the peer-reviewed veterinary sources as posted above. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I picked one of these papers at random (paper 4, Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite–related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009) , Patronek et. al.) and downloaded a copy. It contains the following quote, Of the factors related to dog bites reported in the media as well as in scientific literature, the breed of dog has come to dominate public policy discussions about prevention and control. The undue emphasis on breed.... So this paper states up front (as a literature review) that breed is generally seen as a factor in attack risk both in the media and in the scientific literature. Geogene (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

In what you quoted, it says the emphasis on breed in the media is undue, and it comes to the explicit conclusion "Most DBRFs were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these.". PearlSt82 (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

More precisely, it states that the emphasis is on breed in both scientific literature and in the media. It then asserts its own opinion that this emphasis is undue. Geogene (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and as a secondary literature review from a well respected peer-reviewed journal, that opinion should be weighted highly, especially when it comes to the conclusion after analyzing the cases in-depth. PearlSt82 (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

When describing its own results, it's a primary source for that purpose. When describing views of others, it's secondary. Geogene (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This is not true. Literally the first two sentences from WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." PearlSt82 (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

And from WP:MEDRS - "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations." PearlSt82 (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. So when Patronek says that most scientific papers, media reports, and public policy discussions consider breed to be a factor in risk, he is reviewing the literature and is Secondary for that purpose. When Patronek claims that his own research shows that the breed of dogs involved in attacks are consistently unidentifiable, as he does in this paper, he is Primary for that purpose. Geogene (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

No. Primary for Patronek's purpose, maybe, but secondary for us. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, at no point does he say "most scientific papers" consider breed to be a factor in risk in this paper. PearlSt82 (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The claim you made was that Patronek "concludes that breed is not a factor in dog bite related fatalities." Perhaps he does, although in my reading he actually claims that breed is supposedly impossible to determine in such a large percentage of fatal attacks that there's no way to actually know whether breed is a factor or not, and that BSL is not an effective remedy for these reasons. He is a Primary source on his own conclusion, whatever it might actually be. Nevertheless, in that paper, Patronek says, as a secondary summary of the literature, Of the factors related to dog bites reported in the media as well as in scientific literature, the breed of dog has come to dominate public policy discussions about prevention and control. The undue emphasis on breed.... that breed is reported as a factor in scientific literature as well as the media. This undermines your claim, because he is saying that breed is commonly reported as a factor (perhaps among other factors). He would like there to be less emphasis on breed, but is acknowledging that there's a lot of emphasis on breed out there. WP emphasizes majority viewpoints. Geogene (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

His conclusion is that breed is not a factor in DBRFs, and that is unduely represented by the media. He states this unambiguously: "Most DBRFs were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these." This is not a primary interpreation, it is the conclusion of the study.PearlSt82 (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

From WP:RS: "This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves". PearlSt82 (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you actually read the paper? Geogene (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, a study is always primary for its own novel conclusions. Geogene (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the paper, thank you very much. Look at the discussion of "Dog-related factors" on page 1730. Breed is not one of the factors discussed here. Later in the paper it is stated "Breed-specific legislation must also be viewed in light of study findings9,57 that indicate a lack of correlation between behavior and physical phenotype. This imprecision in breed assignment also brings into question the reliability of the breed information used in previous studies5–8 of DBRFs, which were based solely on media reports of breed.", and again, the conclusion clearly states "Most DBRFs were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these". The idea that a literature review is a primary source for its conclusions is ridiculous. PearlSt82 (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you've read the paper. Those conclusions in the paper are original and primary. And now, let's remember that the point of this RfC you have opened is that you want to replace a reliable secondary source (Time) with other sources, including primary ones, which you are interpreting. And, during this RfC, you've been complaining about me interpreting the same primary sources. Your primary sources, in fact, one of the ones you're trying to replace a secondary source with. And, to repeat myself once again, Patronek is not a literature review for his own conclusions. I don't know why you're not grasping this point, that is something that I find ridiculous. Counting media reports, reading depositions, interviewing detectives, and finding unpublished photos of dogs that were involved in attacks and asking veterinarians to classify those dogs by breed is not what a literature review is. Geogene (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not doing any "interpreting" here, I am pasting near verbatim the upper-level conclusions from secondary sources - which all of these are. The Patronek paper is secondary because it provides a comprehensive review of the primary sources involved in every known DBRF. Additionally, there I'm not the only editor who feels this paper is secondary, as per above. The paper even explicitly states which primary sources it is analyzing, from page 1729: "Primary sources—Law enforcement sources (homicide detectives, chiefs of police, sheriffs, or other investigators) were interviewed with regard to 177 of the 256 (69.1%) DBRFs. Animal control officers were interviewed with regard to 44 of 256 (17.2%) DBRFs. Other persons familiar with the cases (eg, veterinarians, prosecutors, owners, and witnesses) were interviewed with regard to 24 of 256 (9.4%) DBRFs. For 11 (4.3%) cases, no primary source could be interviewed but 2 of these DBRFs were reported extensively in the media and were the subject of high-profile trials." - and again from WP:RS - "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." - where is the policy stating that a paper's conclusions are always primary? WP:PRIMARY says "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment" - this paper is not an "experiment", but rather a thorough examination of existing primary sources, where it is one step removed from the event. PearlSt82 (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

When we talk about literature reviews, we're talking about papers that summarize other published works in order to give an overview of the state of knowledge of some field. What literature reviews do not do is advance their own new arguments, interpret unpublished primary sources, interview new witnesses, or create new data. Just because a paper involved a trip to a library or a courthouse to look at unpublished documents does not mean that that paper is a literature review. Geogene (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Its still a secondary source for the purpose of Wikipedia, and as it was published in the most prominent peer-reviewed journal in the field, it should have more weight over Time and Sports Illustrated. In the initial papers I've posted, 1, 2 and 5 are literature reviews, which draw similar conclusions, showing that the Patronek paper is not a minority viewpoint within the field, but rather part of an accepted consensus within the veterinary community. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Of course. Wikipedia articles should always weight scientific sources over popular press in matters related to the field in question. That should go without saying and is frankly an obvious answer. oknazevad (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Of course. Expert sources are better than sensationalist press.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes It's obvious that we should trust the experts first. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• No. If the question were related to veterinary care, the answer would be "yes", but that is not the case here. The RfC asks to use veterinary journals as part of an appeal to authority, but it fails because it is in fact an appeal to false authority. Rationale: The question of whether a dog's breed are a factor in dog bite-related human fatalities is no more a question of veterinary science than the question of why Black Americans are killed by the police in the United States is a question of medical science. Veterinarians are certainly entitled to their opinions, but their opinions carry no more weight than anyone else's if they are not related to veterinary science. Astro$01 (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I should note that veterinary medicine and studies apply to more than clinical veterinary practice and encompass things like animal behavior and anatomy. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• No. When things happen - a shooting, someone drowned, a car accident whatever - it's news. When a dog mauls someone it's sensationalism. That's strange. SlightSmile 00:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• No, Wikipedia relies on journalists and other secondary sources to summarize the primary sources for us so we don't have editors cherry-picking research. If we are going to rely on primary sources, then we need to recognize that veterinary sources are not the only valid source of information here. Medical experts who treat dog attack victims and study it as a public safety issue are also valid. In two large studies of dog attacks by medical experts, fifty percent of dog attacks were perpetrated by pit bulls. These were a 2009 study in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

References

and a 2016 study in Clinical Pediatrics. My prior attempts to add this information to the article were reverted by PearlSt82 because of this bias against non-veterinary sources. – Anne drew 19:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that I'm not referring to veterinary primary sources, but veterinary secondary sources here - which are all listed at the top of the RfC and clearly secondary sourcing, and that both of these medical studies are primary. I agree veterinary primary sources should not be used. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• No. This subject is controversial and reliable sources have noted that veterinarians tend to have a POV bias in opposition to that of other stakeholders: However, the literature has to be reviewed critically with pro-legislation authors being primarily physicians who see the most severe spectrum of injuries as compared to pro-canine authors who have a veterinary background or are affiliated to them.

References

So giving veterinary sources priority will have the effect of tilting the article POV. I also don't see the merit in individual editor opinions that some RS are "sensationalist". Geogene (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Are there other sources which assert this? In that quote you mention it states that physicians have a POV bias in the other direction, and doesn't go much in detail either way. I ask not to refute the finding or underlying reliability of the publication, but in your post you state "sources" which implies more than one and would just like clarification on the bibliography aspect. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Question about timing - since the RfC is expired and only attracted (from what I can tell) two editors who were previously uninvolved, and current voting is 4/4 (not that consensus is a vote) - would involved editors be willing to participate in a WP:DRN? As mentioned before, I think this is absolutely the crux of the issue for the article and would like a definitive consensus/compromise either way. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Question #2 about timing - reading more about WP:DRN it looks like this is not the venue for large content disputes involving many participants. Since this RfC is no longer active due to timing out, would involved editors object to relisting it as-is? I would really like to attract uninvolved editors to get this issue resolved one way or the other. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I've relisted this and reposted it at WP:NPOVN. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Depends on the source Sources with a history of advocacy on pit bulls are known for misleading or incomplete information. This is a field where I would say veterinary sources are of value for only limited, highly technical areas. When a veterinary source asserts something like "pit bulls are impossible to identify" and then later claims "pit bulls are only responsible for % percent of bites when adjusted for X," that detracts from their credibility. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, of course - but let me be clearer: as per WP:RS: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. So yes, material from a peer reviewed veterinary (or medical, or other relevant field) journal should be at the top of the list. You'd really need a positive consensus for that not to be the case. I don't find arguments about a whole field of research being biased all that convincing here without a ton of compelling evidence (in which case this is a better discussion for a more central location, because the implications of shoddy research would apply across animal articles). Yes, peer reviewed journals are better sources for most things -- especially about statistics and claims about behavior. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: When we're talking about sources that are WP:BIASED because the studies are funded by advocacy organizations and they present findings that are facially illogical, that's a problem. No one said every source is subject to bias, but it needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Case by case basis sounds good to me. But all things being equal, peer reviewed journals should be preferred (and the issue that you're highlighting is why some form of review/secondary research would be best of all, but I'm not sure how typical that is in the field). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I definitely agree that is policy as a general matter, but if you look closely at many of the "peer reviewed studies" in this particular area, they are almost all commissioned by advocacy organizations or those with a vested interest in the adoption industry. Pit bulls are exceedingly difficult to adopt out and comprise the vast majority of dogs in shelters. And yet, they are the most expensive dogs to maintain because of the inherent health problems most of them suffer from due to years of bad breeding. So a lot of organizations have a monied interest in "fluff" studies designed to make them more appealing and play down negative qualities so that a) more people adopt them and b) more people donate to help them fund their expenses. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association is intentionally downplaying public health risks so they can make money? PearlSt82 (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

It's strange, though, that there are peer reviewed papers on this subject that advocate for withholding information about breed background to prospective adopters, isn't it? [13] (this one is not AVMA). Is that ethical? Geogene (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think thats an accurate representation of that paper. The last sentence in the abstract is Given the inherent complexity of breed assignment based on morphology coupled with negative breed perceptions, removing breed labels is a relatively low-cost strategy that will likely improve outcomes for dogs in animal shelters. (emphasis mine). This paper, like many others in the field, are saying that breed identification based on visual identification is unreliable. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

If we were talking about used cars, I don't think this would be considered an ethical business practice. Geogene (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

We're not talking about used cars, particularly because they are not comparable at all. With used cars, you always know the make, model and year. An auto mechanic is never forced to examine an unidentified vehicle and guess these things. This, however, is often the case with shelter dog intake, as shelter employees are often tasked with identifying dogs of unknown parentage a breed based on visual information only. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Shelters have traditionally labeled dogs by apparent breed, the paper is arguing that they begin to withhold this information because it makes it less likely that undesirable dogs (pit bulls) will be adopted. And the reason they don't get adopted is because, as a breed/group, they have a reputation for violence. Geogene (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

This, and many other papers posted on this talk page, note that the practice of visual identification is unreliable. PearlSt82 (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a partisan opinion that not everyone agrees with. Specifically, the Ohio Supreme Court found in State v. Anderson, Nonetheless, pit bull dogs are distinctive enough that the ordinary dog owner knows or can discover with reasonable effort whether he or she owns such a dog [14]. Geogene (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a case from 1990/91 written decades before much of the research in this area has been conducted. PearlSt82 (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Dogs haven't changed much since 1990. A poodle is still a poodle, a pit bull is still a pit bull. People are still able to tell the difference without specialized training. And pit bulls are apparently considered undesirable for adoption. Haven't you noticed that when a paper claims that you can't distinguish between different dog breeds visually, and then claims that pit bulls are discriminated against, that this is something of a contradiction? Geogene (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@PearlSt82: I find it very baffling that we keep hearing the same misinformation from pit bull advocacy organizations repeated here verbatim. To say dogs are classified based on breed is "based on visual information only" is grossly misleading. Dog breeds possess distinct physical characteristics and it is not that complex to differentiate them. Courts have repeatedly found that anyone of reasonable intelligence can identify a dog's breed. Just like any reasonable person can tell the difference between a cat and a dog based on "visual information," yet you would never hear someone blur that line. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's also note the fundamental inconsistency in these "academic papers" commissioned by advocacy groups and adoption agencies that, one the one hand, tout breed-categorized data allegedly showing pit bulls to be less dangerous based on very specific qualifications and conditions, and then dismiss unfavorable (and frankly more straight-forward measuresments, i.e. bites per year, hospital visits, etc.) breed-based categorizations as inherently unreliable. Hm. It's almost like these sources apply a double standard to affirm their own findings and dismiss contrary information. *Scratches head*. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, this information is not coming from "pit bull advocacy organizations". Its appearing in peer-reviewed journals. Citations:

• Comparison of adoption agency breed identification and DNA breed identification of dogs, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 2009;12(3):253-62.
• Comparison of Visual and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs and Inter-Observer Reliability, American Journal of Sociological Research, 2013; 3(2): 17-29
• Inconsistent identification of pit bull-type dogs by shelter staff, The Veterinary Journal, Volume 206, Issue 2, November 2015, Pages 197-202
• Is that dog a pit bull? A cross-country comparison of perceptions of shelter workers regarding breed identification, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 2014;17(4):322-39. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2014.895904. Epub 2014 Mar 27.

These are the sources making the claims - if you think these are unreliable because they're "commissioned by advocacy groups", then please say so directly referencing the paper. This would be far more helpful than vague rhetorical questions and pointing to court cases written 20+ years before these papers were written. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Basically this is an attempt to re-define what a breed is. But breeds are not a new thing, they've been around for centuries, and have always been recognized by morphology and pedigree. I don't think a handful of papers is going to do that. Geogene (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

These articles are authored by a small group of activists who write extensively on why pit bulls are impossible to accurately identify, essentially trying to give an academic imprimatur to a myth propagated by pit bull advocates and disproven in courts of law. Why do I call them activists? Aside from their academic writings, these same authors publish jointly in popular online outlets like Slate advocating for adopting pit bulls. If you start to scratch the surface, you'll see this same pattern repeat itself over and over. There is a huge lobby behind the pit bull adoption/PR machine, and we need to distinguish studies that are clearly influenced by it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for succinctly stating your argument against these sources. I'm not sure why you posted that Slate article however, as the authors of that article are not the same people as the authors of these papers. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

What? That Slate piece was written by Lisa M. Gunter, a Maddie's Fund Research Fellow and the lead author of the Plos One paper we were discussing yesterday [15]. Geogene (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I was referring to the four papers above on visual id. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

That's kind of misleading of you, considering her Google Scholar page shows that she's heavily involved in this DNA testing stuff. [16]. Geogene (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I can assure you I meant those four papers and I don't have the bibliographies of every veterinary scholar memorized. However, how is demonstrating that someone has authored multiple peer reviewed papers supposed to make them less reliable? PearlSt82 (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Speaking hypothetically, because I need to look into this some more, if you have a small and easily identifiable group of researchers that are funded by the same people, have overlapping affiliations, and that express effectively the same ideological viewpoints in public, is it still WP:SECONDARY when they cite each other in that area? Geogene (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It means that we are dealing with a WP:BIASED source and that other, more objective ones are preferable. Especially when the biased sources make WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims that defy common sense and widely available stats. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Victoria Voith, who authored some of the above articles, is a member of the National Canine Research Council, an organization opposed to pit bull legislation. And it is itself -- guess what -- a "subsidiary" of Animal Farm Foundation, an organization dedicated specifically to advocating for pit bull ownership and anti-pit bull legislation. Not even dogs in general, just pit bulls. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Another major contributor, Amy Marder, is a member of the "National Canine Research Council," which is essentially a front or subsidiary for a pit bull lobbying organization. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• It depends - the area and the text involved would be the deciding factors and could differ, a single categorical mandate seems inappropriate. In general I would say the article should use RS appropriate for a line and not convey popular press as a scientific fact particularly in health and safety areas, lede should follow WP:LEAD and be a summary of the body, and that by WP:WEIGHT the body should give more space by prominence which is not to say state it as something it isn’t. If the text is making a statement about general reputation or famous event, then popular press is fine - but if it is stating danger or scientific fact, then it needs an appropriate RS. It may help to look at the WP:MEDRS handling of such distinctions ‘general information’ and MEDPOP sections in particular. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

First off, the reason it's called WP:MEDRS and not WP:PUBLICHEALTHRS is because it's mainly intended to protect the readership from quack medicine, specifically. From what I've seen around Wikipedia, there's no consensus that it should be understood to apply to every article that could tangentially describe ways in which people hurt themselves, articles that have nothing to do with quack medicine such lightning strikes or the Colt AR-15, or this article, and if you did a community referendum to expand the scope of MEDRS to cover every conceivable public health issue there is, you would get a lot of pushback. Secondly, the point of MEDRS is that it's an application of the Precautionary Principle, to avoid promoting quack medicine that readers might use to harm themselves. Here, some people are, perversely, trying to use MEDRS to assert that pitbulls are not inherently dangerous to people, which appears to be somewhat controversial, and if wrong, will actually cause harm to the readership, and not prevent it. This is exactly the opposite of what MEDRS is intended to do. Geogene (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The Fifth Estate's Pitbulls Unleashed as an external link

I don't see the problem with this external link [17] to a long-running Canadian investigative journalism program. Initially, Pearlst82 didn't like it because it was hosted on their official YouTube channel [18]. When I debunked that rationale, [19], they are now claiming it fails ELNO1, not containing a unique resource that a good article would include. I disagree; as journalistic coverage it also contains specific material about individual pitbull attacks which is educational but too deep to be covered in this article. As a full length video program, it also contains interviews, photographs, and video that are educational but not reproducible due to WP's text format and because of copyright, as found in WP:ELYES item 3. Geogene (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

An investigative journalistic piece doesn't rise to the level of an external link. You even said in your first edit that you intend to use it as an RS in the future. It should be treated as a potential source, not an EL. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing about an EL that precludes it being converted into a source for something in the future. This is just Wikilawyering. Geogene (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:ELNO item 1 clearly says: the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. "It being converted into a source for something in the future". is clearly covered by the "should be in the article" clause. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It contains information that should be in the article. But it also contains information that would be beyond the scope of a good article, such as interviews. It also includes video of at least one attack scene that's unusable because it's copyrighted. Geogene (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This piece contains edited interview clips, not full interviews. WP:ELYES says the level of detail is "interview transcripts", which refers to the transcripts of full interviews, not brief snippets used as a part of a larger piece. Nearly every source used for this article contains some information that would be beyond the scope to include in an encyclopedic article, including Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon, which is literally book length. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Because it is a book. Not something we'd normally include as an EL. Geogene (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I posted this at the EL noticeboard. [20] Geogene (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I don’t trust it. I mean the thumbnail on their video is a true pitbull. This https://www.therealpitbull.com/facts/ shows you what a real pitbull is. Anyway it’s no different from the pro side. Just like the pro side, it’s bias, half lies or half truths and propaganda. Trying to make all Pitbulls demons (just as bad as making all Pitbulls angels). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B01E:FEE9:549:9368:1281:9723 (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Factually incorrect, heavily biased

This article seems heavily biased in favor of promoting a specific viewpoint: that the breed is not dangerous. One of the few neutral articles I could find indicates otherwise. This citation clearly shows over 2/3 of dog related fatalities over a 15 year period in the US were caused by "Pit Bulls", not the 1/3 mentioned in the text. 2600:8801:C200:A8:C829:D6D0:180D:E558 (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

That study identifies 60 fatalities from pit bulls out of a total of 199 which is less than one third. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Can't comment on accuracy of references. Even if all the cited sources are reliable, this entry has turned into a position piece on the safety of pit bulls and the ineffectiveness of breed-specific legislation, as opposed to a descriptive article on pit bulls in general. --Paleogizmo (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't even care particularly about pitbulls, but the user PearlSt82 has so obviously selectively chosen citations that they agree with, it's very obvious what is going on. Even if the slant is correct, the way it has been written does not seem convincingly neutral. Even if you disagree with me, do you think this is an article about pitbulls, or is this a position piece on the safety of pit bulls and the ineffectiveness of breed-specific legislation, as was stated by the above user? --Menacinghat (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC) Menacinghat (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The tone, presentation, and selection of sources is all framed around advocacy, not neutrality. This is a fundamental problem with this article and I'll be working to address it in the coming weeks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Wikieditor19920, as you can see several editors have been attempting to fix some the many issues with this article over the last 24 hours. The tone of your statement above suggests that you are not satisfied with any of these efforts, what specifically do you see as the issues? Cavalryman (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC).

@Cavalryman: What those editors are doing is fine, what I am NOT satisfied with and what is contrary to neutrality is your wholesale removal of relevant, sourced, factual information from the lead. Stop whitewashing this article of controversies and other negative information. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello again Wikieditor19920, please show me a diff where I removed some of your additions to the lead, I did a little copy editing [21] but no more. More, why did you reinsert the issues tags and remove some of the content from the History section? Cavalryman (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC).

The fact that the sentence However, a five-year review in the peer-reviewed medical journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in 2009 found that over half of dog attack victims admitted to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia were attacked by pit bulls. keeps getting deleted despite the fact I used a news article is terrible. I'm sure the scientists were all biased pitbull banners and those reviewing the journal were all biased. Menacinghat (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I can offer a few superficial reasons to settle any frayed edges: 1) That is a surgery journal and its presumed specialty is medical. 2) The article is older than ten years. 3) Pit Bulls exist outside of Philadelphia. 4) Not all news is equally qualified, even if popular. 5) A meta-analysis of bias in the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery journal exists, though I disincline to investigate for conclusions. I hope that casts some light onto what is taken to be the problem. - Thrif (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing you are referring to this author? Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature (Bailey 2017). Normal Op (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

The piece currently still reads as an issue advocacy piece arguing for the safety of pit bulls. The history is littered with examples of well-sourced factual information on research around dog bites and child fatalities being removed and replaced with vague unsourced statements claiming that pit bulls are perfectly safe. It even contains a section on notable pit bulls that is full of poorly formatted unsourced claims about unnotable dogs. Example: "Daddy, Cesar Millan's right-hand dog, was famous for his mellow temperament and his ability to interact calmly with ill-mannered dogs." and "Pit bull breeds have acted as war dogs, police dogs, search and rescue dogs, actors, television personalities, seeing eye dogs, and celebrity pets." As it currently exists, this is a very low quality article with little to no encyclopedic value. I think this article needs an unbiased maintainer to carefully examine the sections, the sources, and the content. This is likely to be an ongoing problem for as long as there are highly motivated pit bull lovers willing to devote countless hours to editing this article. 2hip2carebear (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I implemented some of those changes. I deleted any mentions of dogs that weren't linked to standalone articles about them, marked the claim about Cesare Millan's dog's temperament as unsourced, and didn't see the contradiction with Nipper. Geogene (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of the contradiction tag from next to Nipper. No sources that provide in depth coverage of his pedigree claim he was a pit bull, two sources in the article state he was part Bull Terrier, a pedigree breed that is outside the definition of pit bull in this article. That someone has found a single fleeting mention that contradicts all more detailed sources does not justify the tag's removal. Further, given Nipper was English and we have reliable sources stating that in Britain the term pit bull only includes the American Pit Bull Terrier, the inconsistency of his classification is further reinforced. Cavalryman (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC).

Okay. I didn't understand the issue. Geogene (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

What about these two cites @Ohnoitsjamie: added [22] for Daddy the dog? One looks like an opinion aggregator [23] and the other is a Salon piece that repeats the nanny dog myth [24]. Geogene (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It's easy to find other sources (as I have done, including one from NYT) that support the "famous for his mellow temperament" statement. Your opinions of what constitutes a "myth" are irrelevant to the issue of sourcing here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You believe in nanny dogs?! Geogene (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

One things that Pitbulls haters need to know is that not all Pitbulls were use in dog fighting. They were use for other things https://caoimhinism.wordpress.com/2017/11/07/debunking-the-memes-the-lies-and-propaganda-claims-series/ and that most of the Pitbulls in media aren’t actually Pitbulls https://www.therealpitbull.com/facts/ And to the person at the top and everyone else both sides are bias and propaganda. Claiming that all Pitbulls are angels is just as bad as claiming all are monsters. There are many Pitbulls who never killed or maul even after death. You can even YouTube search Pitbulls saving lives and look up breeds that are misidentified as pitbulls which means that most or at half aren’t from Pitbulls.

The people who disagree with this article. Yes it’s bias but the other side is also bias. And CDC is spreading the truth about Pitbulls. They aren’t denying Pitbulls attacks, they are just pointing out that some breeds are mistaken for Pitbulls. That doesn’t mean that they are Pitbulls friendly. Listening to someone or something just because they are anti or pro is no better. It’s better to listen to someone who is neutral on the breed so that there will be no bias, half lies/half truths and propaganda.

Actually after reading this https://www.therealpitbull.com/facts/ and seeing the pictures, I’m not for sure that this site has actual picture of the real APBT.

Also https://caoimhinism.wordpress.com/2017/11/07/debunking-the-memes-the-lies-and-propaganda-claims-series/ (not all were bred for fighting)

Pitbulls are only a problem in the us and uk https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10888705.2017.1387550

Read the whole thing pitbull haters https://www.mkplawgroup.com/dog-bite-statistics/ and https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/literature-reviews/dog-bite-risk-and-prevention-role-breed

Genes aren’t everything https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-pit-bulls