This is an archive of past discussions about Pit bull. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Unclear is this about the breed, or a dog safety article? Also, several of the footnotes I looked at are bad references
This article is NOT a very good article! If its supposed to be about the breed, then it sucks. This doesn't tell me much about Pit Bulls at all! Not if they are healthy, what jobs they are good for(well a very little bit) and barely anything about their recognition to clubs. Not even a description of what markings constitute a purebred. Those are the things an article about a dog should focus on more, I think. If its about the safety issue, then it needs to be renamed, and it needs to have both sides of the issue! Like that guy, That Dog Whisperer on TV and others who seem to think the trouble has nothing to do with the breed, but training and abuse, and if you legislate against Pit Bulls, nothing would be solved, because the bad guys would just train a different breed of dog to do the same thing, and there would just be as many accidents and victims. This article goes a bit to that in admitting that the breed is chosen by people who use them to dog fight, act as weapons and guard places, but it oddly uses this as proof that they are innately dangerous, not that they are trained to be so, just as any other dog would be in their place, and that they would likely be replaced by another dominant breed. So the article fails to provide the anti legislation opinion at all, much less in equal terms. It is written as if Pitt Bulls are already illegal(thats what I first thought when I read it!), and justifies that action. A lot of things are unsourced. For example; It states that many municipalities have laws against ownership, but the only footnote is the one about the army banning them in the family living areas at the base, nothing else. Besides; How many is "many". A lot of things are badly sourced. For Example; The footnote of the Dog Deaths in the United States portion of the article leads me to another wikipedia article, also written by the same person as this one! You can't use one of your own articles to provide proof for another! Another example; The article where the police spokesman was supposedly talking about Pit Bulls being the primary dog used by drug dealers and others who use them as a weapon barely mentions the breed. They are mostly talking about dogs that are trained to act aggressive to intruders in general, and how that affects the police. Nor does the article condemn the dog owners. Obviously it can be good for a dog to protect against an intruder. Its just a bummer for the police. The article didn't pick sides. Also, the introduction uses the word "and" about three times in one sentence, and generally is lacking in grammar. It never mentions that households have them as legal and happy pets. I live in Minneapolis, and I see they are legal here. I certainly see them with seemingly satisfied owners. This mentions that the Humane Society kills tons of them. The reason for that is that many Pit Bulls are bred and trained for dog fighting, thus they are so often confiscated and euthanized. I realize there may be legit concern about safety in keeping the breed as pets. I also admit I don't know that much about the issue. But this article is out of balance. I think it needs to be re written by someone with a more neutral opinion. No offense Astro. And no disrespect to your agenda. You may be totally correct. But this is not the place to further the viewpoint. Besides. Pit Bull isn't even a breed. Its just a term less knowledgeable people(like me) call several breeds. Maybe all the article really needs to say is what breeds belong to "Pit Bull" and direct the reader there. Perhaps its best to delete much of this article and whatever ones relating to this safety issue, and simply put all this safety information under one article "Dog Safety Legislation" Then you can talk about the bills, the dog death facts and everything, and the people who will see it are the ones looking for it! And both views for and against can be expressed.(Lollipopfop (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC))
Summary in lead
Obviously there's contention as to whether Pit Bulls are a more aggressive or violent dog. Nearly the entire article is spent on this. This means a summary of that argument needs to appear in the lead. I propose something along the lines of, "Though often depicted as a breed particularly aggressive and sometimes violent to humans, the truth of this characterization has been contested."--Loodog (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
How about this: "The temperament of pit-bull type dogs is disputed", followed by a summary of the positions with citations for each, similar to the way that "breed specific legislation" is summarized. This could lead to a fairly long discussion, but I would suggest limiting it to the breed conformation characteristics as identified by the United Kennel Club and the American Kennel Club, and findings from various court decisions.Astro$01 (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Proportionality of pit bull-related deaths
The text under discussion is:
It is impossible to say with certainty if the number of pit bull-type dog attacks is out of proportion to the number of pit bull-type dogs in the population because the total number of pit bulls in any geographic area is unknown.
The question is whether a specific citation is needed to assert that "it is impossible to say with certainty...."
I think the answer is "no." My logic is as follows:
"Proportionality" refers to the question of whether the number of fatalities due to attacks by pit-bull-type dogs is out of proportion to the number of pit bull-type dogs in the population.
If the ratio of the number fatal attacks by pit bull-type dogs to the number of pit bull dogs in the population is significantly greater than the ratio of the number of fatal attacks by all other types of dogs to the number of all other types of dogs in the population, then one could say that pit bull-type dogs cause a disproportionately larger number of fatalities than other dogs.
If pit bulls kill a disproportionately larger number of people, then one could say that pit bull-type dogs are more likely to kill than other dogs.
The assertion under discussion follows from the following quote from the cited material:
There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.
If there is no way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, then it is impossible to draw the conclusion at (3) above because you cannot get past step (2), wherein you must know the number of a particular breed (or group of related breeds) to perform the calculations.
In light of the CDC position, the basis for an assertion by Temple Grandin "that the percentage of dog bites by pit bulls is much higher than their proportion in the general population of pet dogs" is unclear.
The CDC 2000 report specifically says (and is quoted in the wiki article):
It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities
The cited text gives the proportionality statement in terms of likelihood, rather than an absolute fact, so it seems more precisely stated than in the Grandin citation.
Yes, and therefore, its just an opinion, and it should not appear in Wikipedia. It may be true, but as you have no proof, it means the comment needs to be excluded, not kept in the form of an opinion. -LOllipopfop )1/13/2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipopfop (talk • contribs) 07:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem with this is it includes "pit-bull type dogs," nto just pit bulls. This is a very broad category which probably contains more non-pits than pits. You woudl have to knwo the proportion of pit-bull type dogs to give any sort of analysis and you would have to onyl compare to similar-sized dogs to be fair. Chihuahuas are often viscous little bastards, but aren't capable of killing a human under most circumstances, so it isn't to put them and other small breeds in the comparison. Ace of Sevens (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The entire premise of the wiki article is that the term "pit bull" refers to a type of dog that is made up of several breeds. This is consistent with the general usage term "pit bull" and with various statutes in the United States and elsewhere, so I do not see how we can get around categorization. Astro$01 (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The article says the bull terriers and Staffordshire terriers are both pit bulls. It does not say that Akitas and German shepherds, which are given as examples of pit-bull-type dogs. are pit bulls. What I'm saying is there seems to be little correlation between what's grouped under pit-bull-type dog for the purposes of the statistics and what is common considered a pit bull, so without more data, it's quite useless. Ace of Sevens (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The wiki article does not give German Shepherd Dogs and Akitas as examples of pit bull-type dogs, nor does it group them under pit bull-type dogs. Astro$01 (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The article does not identify "viciousness" as a trait of pit bull-type dogs, except to mention it in the context of describing some breed-specific legislation, so I do not see how it bears in this case. Astro$01 (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have missed my point. I was saying that in order to be fair when calculating what percentage of dog fatalities are caused by pitbulls, you have to only compare them to dogs large enough to be theoretically dangerouss. Comparing them to dogs in general would be like including start pistols in gun-crime statistics. Ace of Sevens (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
If that was your point then the article is still "fair" since even a small dog is large enough to be "theoeretically dangerous". For example, 6-week-old Justin Mozer was killed in January 2008 by a small Jack Russell Terrier (see [1]). Astro$01 (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
People are occassionally killed by starter pistols, too. That doesn't mean it's fair to lump them in with guns in general when making statistics about gun deaths. Ace of Sevens (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
History - recommended for complete revision
The text in the history section has been entirely unsourced since January 2007; the exception is the number of times pit bull-type dogs appeared on the cover of Life magazine.
There are brief histories of the three breeds (American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier) that are grouped together as pit bull-type dogs on the websites of the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club. I propose substituting text from those sites (with attribution) for all the current "history" text.Astro$01 (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Reorganize "Breed-Specific Language" and "Legal Challenges" sections
I propose to delete the overall category of "legal challenges" and shift the main subgroups (Canada, United States) to follow the tables within the country-specific portions of the BSL section, since these are the only countries found so far with legal challenges to BSL aimed at pit bull-type dogs. Astro$01 (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
1. The survey statistics themselves indicate a bias against pit bulls. 2/3ds of 'pit bull terrier' attacks in the survey cause maiming or death, while 5/6 of all other breeds bites cause maiming or death. Simply put, there are different standards for what makes a noteworthy attack with less severe attacks from pitbulls making it into the survey where other breeds would not.
2. Merritt Clifton has shown no evidence that the news articles the survey is based on were based on expert identification of dogs, as the survey's methodology claims.
3. The 'Pit Bull Terrier' statistics are based on a group of various breeds, the only group based statistics in the survey.
4. The 2nd and 3rd person media reports the survey is based on may be based largely on misidentification or macho-ism. Pit Bulls have been reported to attack 1451 people in the survey, popular breeds that are similar: the Bull Terrier, American Bulldog and Presa Canario are rarely identified in attacks (54 attacks total). Similarly, look alike breeds such as the Dogo Argentino, Patterdale Terrier and Olde English Bulldogge have only 1 attack reported among them. Additionally, breeds that are commonly misidentified as pit bulls like the Rhodesian Ridgeback, Vizsla, Cane Corso and Doge De Bordeaux have not been credited with any attacks in 27 years.
5. The media has it's choice of severe dog attacks to choose from. The study surveys 1,451 articles covering an estimated 810,000 severe dog attacks in the time period.
Local and state courts have ruled that the report is incomplete and that it's methodology is outdated, noting that numerous modern canine behavior studies disprove its claims.
The analysis is subjective as its conclusions are not based on data gathered within the press articles it used as its data source. It can easily be compared to a one sided argument with Mr. Clifton offering a single solution - the extreme, and in his own words "prejudice" act of mandatory euthanasia of the Pit Bull breeds through breed specific legislation.
There have been discussions about dropping this section in the past. The survey is based on are inaccurate, incomplete, and often subjective. of the 45 Pit Bull attacks in the survey that can be independently searched a were known to be caused by a pit bull breed and 2 of those were aggressive acts, one of those was targeting a horse.
That is why I added points 1, 2, 3, and 5. To point out statistical inaccuracies between the data and the conclusions. I didn't ask you to take my word for it, the report is referenced and the data is in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwightlathan77 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
"no one agreed that the Clifton Report was an unreliable source." Are you serious? While that is technically true, it is because not a single person responded to that request. You make it sound like everyone agreed with your position. Three people in 2007 wanted it out and on this current talk page, I count 4(including 2 IPs) who wants it out. You are the only editor who is arguing to keep it.--Dodo bird (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Quite serious. If no one even bothers to respond to a complaint, it should perhaps cause reconsideration as to how the rest of the community views it. Astro$01 (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
"Similar" breeds - recommended for deletion
The text in question is in the lead section:
In the media the term is vague and may include other breeds with similar physical characteristics, such as the Perro de Presa Canario, Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Alano Español, Japanese Tosa, Dogue de Bordeaux, Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, American Bulldog, Boxer, Valley Bulldog, Olde English Bulldogge, Renascence Bulldogge, and Banter Bulldogge. These breeds are rarely listed by name in breed-specific legislation, but they are sometimes included when the term is defined broadly and based on physical appearance.[citation needed]
This material has no citation - I recommend it for deletion if sourcing cannot be found. Several of the breeds mentioned (Perro de Presa Canario, Dogo Argentino, Japanese Tosa) are cited as breeds separate from the pit bull-type dog. From personal experience, few people will mistake a Dogue de Bordeaux (as seen in the movie, Turner and Hooch) for a pit bull-type dog.Astro$01 (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I recommend deleting the section on the Clifton Report. The survey statistics themselves indicate a media bias which the survey is compiled on. 2/3ds of 'pit bull terrier' attacks in the survey cause maiming or death, while 5/6 of all other breeds bites cause maiming or death. Simply put, there are different standards for what makes a noteworthy attack with less severe attacks from pitbulls making it into the survey. Merritt Clifton has shown no evidence that the news articles the survey is based on were based on expert identification of dogs, as the survey's methodology claims. Further, the 'Pit Bull Terrier' statistics are based on a group of various breeds, the only group based statistics in the survey. In addition, I find it hard to believe that while Pit Bulls have attacked 1451 people, popular breeds that are similar: the Bull Terrier, American Bulldog and Presa Canario are rarely identified in attacks. Neither are look alike breeds such as the Dogo Argentino, Patterdale Terrier and Olde English Bulldogge. Breeds that are commonly misidentified as pit bulls like the Rhodesian Ridgeback, Vizsla, Cane Corso and Doge De Bordeaux have not been included in the 27 year long period as attacking anyone, ever!
There is already an entire Wikipedia article on dog fighting.
I propose deleting this separate section and weaving any discussions of dog fighting into the main text (with citations). Astro$01 (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I propose deleting this section and instead adding a reference in the "Legislation specific to pit bull-type dogs" mentioning that pit bull-type dogs do not have "locking jaws" and providing an attributed citation. Astro$01 (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Propose deleting the note about "bite, hold and shake" behaviour. This is not a trait unique to the pit bull but to any breed - observe any dog at play. Linking to pit bull advocacy and rescue groups who provide information on break sticks is misleading. These groups clearly indicate that a break stick is not necessary for every pit bull owner but instead for any dog owner whose individual dog has dog-to-dog aggression.
Chicacheex (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This should stay unless you can find a citation that says that all dogs exhibit the bite-shake-hold behavior. With regard to the break sticks, Pit Bull Rescue Central says, "No responsible owner should be without one" in the context of being a pit bull owner, and the Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pitbulls says, "All owners should know how to safely break up a fight, and how to use a break stick" in the context of owning a pit bull, so it is not clear to me how these groups are for "any dog owner whose individual dog has dog-to-dog aggression". These recommendations are for pit bull owners. Astro$01 (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The "bite hold and shake" behaviour has a citation linking to the Pit Bull Resource Central page, which identifies this is as a *terrier* trait, not a pit bull trait. Furthermore, that particular claim is not supported by a study or citation by a specific professional. I did a quick google search and couldn't find someone stating that this is a unique pit bull trait, so shouldn't the burden of proof be to proove that this IS a uniquely pit bull trait?
Take a closer look at the Sports Illustrated citation from 1987 (I copied the citation to the location in question to address your point):
Unfortunately the pit bull, when it attacks, doesn't merely bite man—or, most horribly, child—it clamps its powerful jaws down and literally tears its victim apart. "The injuries these dogs inflict are more serious than other breeds because they go for the deep musculature and don't release; they hold and shake," says Sheryl Blair of the Tufts Veterinary School, in North Grafton, Mass., which last year held a symposium entitled Animal Agression: Dog Bites and the Pit Bull Terrier.
I maintain that the guidelines on the PBRC and Bad Rap sites are for any dog owners. If I can get a statement from both to this afffect, can this section be deleted or changed?
You would need to get them to change their web pages to clarify that the owners of all dogs (e.g., Chihuahuas, Pekingese, Golden Retrievers, etc) should carry break sticks, and not just the pit bull-type dogs. This seems to me unlikely given that the sole subject of each page (and of each website) is the ownership of pit bull-type dogs, and that PBRC specifically defines a "break stick" as "a device inserted into the mouth of a pit bull (behind the molars) to facilitate the release of its grip on another dog".Astro$01 (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
"Famous Owners" section - recommended for deletion
I propose to delete the "famous owners" section since it is US-focused and no new information has come to light regarding "famous owners" outside the United States. Astro$01 (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm restoring the section. Lack of non-US owners is not a reason to delete this. Pit Bulls are much more popular in the US than in most other countries, so it's not surprising the list would be US-centric. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
"External Links" section - recommended for deletion
I propose to delete the "External Links" section since the 1st link (on dog bite statistics) does not reference pit bull terriers; the second links to a 1991 movie (A Little Vicious) about a pit bull-type dog saved from court-ordered euthanasia by the intervention of a professional dog trainer; the trainer is able to modify the dog's behavior, so court takes the dog from its owner and gives it to the trainer. Seems more of a curiosity than an encyclopedia entry; possibly move reference to the "History" section. Astro$01 (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The only information remaining in this section refers to a case in Alabama that did not address breed-specific legislation, but rather an administrative decision to euthanize pit bull puppies. Only indirect references to the original material appears to be available. If this material is ever found, it should be included as part of the challenges to breed-specific legislation under "Alabama" (this would be a new area in the relevant table). The "debate" is already encapsulated in the discussion of dog bite-related fatalities and breed-specific legislation Astro$01 (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
"Further Reading" section - recommended for deletion
This section contains a series of books with a very strong POV. If we are trying to get rid of the POV issues with this article then we would either need to find books with a strong POV the other way (and identify them as such) or just get rid of these articles. It seems to me the POV is identified in the earlier BSL section, so we do not need more of that here. Astro$01 (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This section contains some references to other wikipedia pages that are already referenced in the text. No need to list them twice. Astro$01 (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I propose adding a main section to organize discussion of commercial restrictions on pit bull ownership and activies, including restrictions on homeowners insurance, the ability to rent property as the owner of a pit bull-type dog, airline or other restrictions on travel, etc. to differentiate these restrictions from breed-specific legislation. Astro$01 (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Added this section; deleted "Insurance Problems" section after shifting relevant information to the new section. Astro$01 (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Suggest the entire Commercial Regulations section be moved to a breed-specific legislation article. These issues are not unique to pit bulls: many organizations, municipalities or companies that restrict pit bulls have similar restrictions on rottweilers, dobermans, mastiff breeds, etc. (see breed-specific legislation Wikipedia article).
In the Airline list, only one carrier restricts transportation of pit bulls. Any other restrictions are based on safety concerns for the dog (extreme heat)and are not limited to pit bulls. Section is not relevant.
Chicacheex (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
It is relevant to the extent it applies to pit bull-type dogs. Other sections on other dog breeds or types of dogs are free to apply the same lists as they apply to them. Astro$01 (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
This section comprised over 2/3 of the article (total size > 100 kB). Shifted to its own article, with reference pointers aiming at it. Astro$01 (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Dog Bite-Related Fatalities
I've added a paragraph referencing the behavioral studies that have dominated Pit Bull research over the last decade, and have included a link to a court record as a source. I felt it important to add a source and the court record includes the testimony of 16 experts that testified on behalf of the appellant and the state. I know that the court record is not the ideal source and plan on adding additional references as I find appropriate sources.
A court opinion is just that: an opinion. It is not a WP:RS for a statement of fact unless the "fact" is that someone had that opinion. In this particular case, the opinion cited was the opinion of only one judge in the Ohio Supreme Court verdict (see ([2]). Try again when you have reliable sources. Astro$01 (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The subject of the section you have modified is Dog Bite-Related Fatalities. The study you have referenced ([3]) does not make any reference to fatalities, but it does say that 27 of the 38 dogs (or over 2/3) displayed visual or acoustic threats, while one actually managed to bite someone during the test; however, the researchers decided that threatening behavior was "appropriate". Also, it is not clear that the study was "notable" (by whom?) The paragraph you added is therefore a good candidate for deletion, unless you want to report the threatening behavior as well.... Astro$01 (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
As the rebuilder of this page over the past couple of months, I think I should put down here more detail on the whys and wherefores of the dog bite-related fatality information I added. If you don't like it, please post here and discuss proposed changes (as called for at the top of the page) before wandering through and libeling people or deleting entire sections. I continually extended that courtesy as I rewrote the section; please continue that practice now.
I did not add information on the number of dog attacks because the number of "attacks" by dogs is extremely difficult to assess: there are no organizations that I'm aware of that collect this information other than local animal control organizations within their own jurisdictions. This means that collating this data on a state, regional, or national level would require contact with every city/town/county animal control organization in the area to gather their dog bite information; even then, not all dog bites are reported to the animal control organizations, so the estimate would still be imprecise, with no reliable way of knowing which breed or breed types were involved.
The number of "fatal attacks" by dogs (aka "canine homicides") is much easier to identify because the level of law enforcement scrutiny and public interest is much greater. "Dog bites man" is not news; "dog kills man" IS news, and these events are unusual enough to garner significant local and sometimes national attention. As with all dog bites, the federal and state governments do not collate fatal dog attack information, so the next-best generally available source of this information is press reportage. All three of the reports identified in the article, namely the CDC, Clifton Report, and Dogsbite.org) use the same general methodology of scanning press reports; the prevalence of internet news reportage, and the advent of Google(R) and other internet search engines has made finding these reports considerably easier than in the past.
With regard to dogsbite.org and reporting for the years 2006-2008, I understand Ms. Lynn has a point of view and that yours may differ; however, ad hominem rewrites are not appropriate here. I have reviewed her citations and references and believe she has been quite thorough in documenting all of the claimed dog bite attacks as well as their attribution in the press to various dog breeds. If you have other information that contradicts her sources on specific canine homicides in the 2006-2008 time period, e.g., some incidents were missed or incorrectly reported as canine homicides, or where the press misreported animal control or law enforcement personnel in identifying the type of dog involved, or where these personnel made a clear error in identifying the breed of the dog(s) in question, bring them forward and we can talk about them; I'm sorry, but I think that making generalizations about how the press always gets it wrong, or how animal control professionals or veterinarians cannot identify pit bull-type dogs based on established criteria are insufficient in light of the supporting data as well as numerous U.S. court decisions in this regard(see the breed-specific legislation page for more details). You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. If you have them, bring them.
It don't see how dogsbite.org would meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines. Statistics should come directly from original sources, not from a aggregation site. If dogsbite.org is mentioned, it should be in a new section describing groups with opposing viewpoints (advocacy groups versus opposition groups, or position statements from notable groups). OhNoitsJamieTalk14:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I am wary of including individual names. We have guidelines that address the inclusion of the names of individuals, which apply even to the deceased where the privacy of living relatives may be impacted. Even if the names were reported in reliable sources, if these people are only notable for one event, then privacy concerns should outweigh inclusion where the actual names do not add anything to reader understanding. We could just as easily have the incidents listed by state with sources. Mfield (Oi!) 21:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree caution is warranted. I checked the Wikipedia guidelines dealing with items about the deceased before I posted the names, and it seems to me that the item as written is consistent with that guidance whereas using the names of the decedents' relatives or of living pit bull attack victims would not be within the guidance. Astro$01 (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I have deep concerns with the inclusion of this list - and the article as a whole. You've acknowledged that media reporting is a questionable source of data, but in absence of good stats is the solution to use biased and inferior statistics?
It's clearly incomplete. The only acceptable source for publishing statistics like this are studies from government agencies, animal control groups, or peer-reviewed journals. The fact that the list is separated into pit bull vs. non pit bull breeds suggests a bias from the outset. Not only that, but the loose term "pit bull type" dog is used to describe anything close to a pit bull or a pit bull mix.
you'll note that in the media reports, many of the descriptions are vague, no photos are provided, no animal professional identification is done. It's overwhelmingly clear that the commonalities behind the attacks are abused and neglected dog rather than breed. (Why aren't the lists separated into "chained dogs" and "non chained dogs"?) Instead it's broken down by this vague "pit bull type" category and summarized with no context or caution.
I'll say it again. This a misleading and incomplete list. In 2009 alone, a quick internet search showed there were at least three deaths not reported on this list (and all three were non-pit bull breeds! Coincidence?)
Dolly Newell. Bitten by a Rottweiler and subsequently died of the infected wound.
I will eventually submit changes to this list, but for now I suggest that these stats be removed from the pit bull article completely.
Minimally, the headline should be changed. These are not "Fatalities in the US" but "Media reported fatalities in the US". It should also mention that these are included because no independent or national statistics exist.
Chicacheex (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
New section proposed
Not sure what the section should be called, but how about a section where we discuss notable pro/anti groups (i.e., badrap.org, dogsbite.org), as well advocates and opponents (i.e., Cesar Milan), or positions from notable groups. Given the controversial nature of the topic, I think both sides deserve some coverage. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you are playing with fire to start inserting sources/references/opinions from organizations that are arguably notWP:Reliable sources and which emphasize a very strong POV - thanks, BTW, for pointing out that guidance! Your point is very well taken, so I'm going to try to present the same information using direct references, rather than through an aggregation site, as soon as I can.
I think the likely result of the new section will be one heck of an edit war, not to mention a lot of vandalism. We've already seen a precursor with the reaction of people who like pit bulls when they saw reporting of data collected (with solid attribution) by folks who do not like pit bulls. I think this article will be much better off if it keeps to "facts about pit bulls" rather than presenting an open invitation to "facts, observations, irrelevancies, opinions, vitriol, falsehoods, libels, personal insults, and smears aimed between people who like/do not like pit bulls." The breed-specific legislation page had a lot of the same problems, for a lot of the same reasons: "argument" was routinely presented as "fact." If you want a preview, just do a "Google" search for news stories keyed on "pit bull attack" and peruse the reader comments section that follows the reportage.
Hmm...you do raise a valid point. I appreciate your hard work on the article, and that you're trying to keep the it as factual as possible and make sure that it adhere to our guidelines. It's tricky though, because there is a cultural/media phenomenon/controversy currently with pit bulls more so than most other breeds right now. For instance, when I was growing up, Dobermans and German Shepherds were the stereotypical scary/evil/dangerous dogs; now they've been replaced by pit bulls for that role. At the same time, there is a significant (and notable, i.e. Cesar Milan) group of proponents. In any case, it's worth thinking about, though it would be prudent to discuss it further here before trying to add it to the article. OhNoitsJamieTalk04:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that instead of a catalogue of questionable dog bite statistics, part of this article be moved to "breed specific legislation" and be replaced by a more neutral set of categories pertaining to the pit bull debate. On the advocates side we can list the work of Cesar Millan, the publicity surrounding the rehabilitated Vick dogs, media bias, and the work of many pit bull rescue organizations including BadRap, Pit Bull Rescue Central, Best Friends Animal Society, and Rescue Ink, who have rescued and re-homed tens of thousands of pit bulls into family environments without incident. Chicacheex (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with exactly how closely Wikipedia would like to approximate what passes for "objective" among the scientific communities. The methodology used to attain the data in the Clifton Report would not be considered rigorous or be considered by a peer reviewed journal. Threats to the validity of the conclusions drawn from the data include, for starters, that none of the possible confounds to statistical conclusion validity have been addressed. For example, possibilities could include that pitbull attacks are more often published, that unsupervised children cause a statistically significant number of dog attacks in general, etc., etc., etc. There exists no reasonable causal inference where no confounds have been controlled for.
Appropriate methodology could include multiple regression, where different predictor variables such as unsupervised child, socioeconomic status, etc., are regressed onto the variable, fatal dog attack. Using this sort of method can allow for comparison of different contributors to dog fatalities, and can also lend to causal inference.
Causal inferences are RARELY considered reasonable by scientists when they are made basis of correlational data such as that presented in the Clifton Report. Multiple regression, which I all too briefly explained would be one exception.
I don't see a need to ask the professors, as Clifton report does not claim the reported percentages are statistically significant or that they prove that the number of people killed by pit bull-type dogs is out of proportion to the number of pit bull-type dogs in the dog population; rather, the percentages are significant in an actuarial sense because the calculation of perceived risk, or probability of being bitten times the damage inflicted by a bite as measured by many politicians and insurance actuaries, is unacceptably high for pit bull-type dogs. As they say, when the lawn is mowed it is the tall grass that gets shortened. Astro$01 (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
You are still making a causal inference, that when pitbull-type dogs attack, they inflict more damage than other breeds. You are suggesting that pitbulls themselves CAUSE more damage than other breeds when they attack humans, rather than that humans are more vulnerable to damage in situations of pitbull-type dog attacks, for example. However unlikely my example is, no confounds have been controlled for in this "study", so you cannot responsibly judge how unreasonable my example is based on these data. A more likely confound would be that pitbull-type dog attacks on people, which are arguably sensationalized by the media, get more "press". Further, more attacks rendering the greatest damage probably find "press-time", or likewise, the most severe attacks are probably reported to insurance. This is called sampling bias, where the authors did not acquire a representative sample of pitbull-type dog attacks on people. This confounds the calculation of a probability of being bitten, and likewise a calculation of probable damage inflicted. You must have a representative sample of dog bite cases, such as a random sample, and know very near the total number of pitbull-type dogs to calculate the probability of being attacked or the probable damage.
I agree that there is greater risk of incomplete reporting for non-fatal dog attacks; however, the Clifton Study and the article address fatal attacks only. The article already carries Mr. Clifton's disclaimer the list does not include all fatal attacks, so if you know about cases where Mr. Clifton missed fatal attacks, or where medical examiners incorrectly attributed fatal attacks to dogs, then bring them forward. Astro$01 (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Have you read the articles? The reports address attacks doing bodily harm, maimings, and deaths. And my broad and sweeping point has been missed. To make the inference that either a breed is more likely to attack, or that a breed is more deadly when attacking, you need the total number of animals of the breed in the population. Since Mr. Clifton does not report this in his disclaimer, the statement of the study's limitations is inadequate.
Naturally. By "article" I was refering to the information in the pit bull wiki article, not to other passages in the Clifton Report that were not included in the wiki Pit Bull article. Sorry for any confusion on that point. Astro$01 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the issue here is that you believe you can calculate a probability based on what you think is a representative sample of the most severe attacks. You cannot, as you need the total number of dogs of the breed or type to do so. If there are one hundred attacks on people by Golden Retrievers, and two hundred attacks by pitbull-type dogs, with the latter attacks doing twice the damage on average, this tells me nothing about how likely I am to be severely damaged by a pitbull-type dog. I would need a representative sample of attacks by both breeds, and the total number of the dogs of both breeds to calculate this.
Your assumption of what I believe is mistaken. Please re-read the portions of the wiki article that address potential sources of error in the "[[Pit Bull#Pit bull-related fatalities|pit bull-related fatalities" section and in the Clifton Report section, including the point made here. Astro$01 (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I did not make an assumption. You stated that "percentages are significant in an actuarial sense because the calculation of perceived risk". This reveals that you in fact had believed, or do believe that such a calculation, as I mentioned above, could be carried out (to quantify risk).
The significance of the percentages in an actuarial sense does not stem from belief but from an examination of insurance industry practices on liability insurance related to pit bull-type dogs. Whether I believe their practices are right, fair, or rigorous is irrelevant; I therefore continue to maintain that your assumption about my beliefs is mistaken. Astro$01 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
But is it right to put in a study if it is quite obviously so flawed? Especially as this issue is actually due for possible legislation? Its doubly important to give facts, and facts only. Not just what insurance companies decided. They also feel that those people who have red cars will have more accidents. There is certainly no proof of that, is there? The only way to know if Pit Bulls are any more dangerous is to include numbers owned, situation of the attack, training, and compare the numbers to an "acceptable" breed. Otherwise, it is best not to use numbers that are obviously easily misleading. Ill say, This whole thing worries me because of what I see as bias. Considering this could influence actual LAW, we owe it to the readers to do better then this! We need to exclude the numbers, because there is no study that is at all helpful right now. The one thing I see when I look at the dog deaths numbers is that they are very low. It would be fair to point out that the dog deaths in the past three years do not add up to the automobile deaths of the last three days!! (Lollipopfop (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC))
In this case, your metaphor is quite inadequate. Here we would be deciding which type of grass to stop planting, where we want lawn that doesn't grow too long, too often. Complicates things a bit.. While one type of grass may grow longer, what matters IS statistical significance. If only one blade grows longer than other types of grasses, would we stop growing this type? We need solid stats to make a decision like this.
The metaphor of the tallest blade of grass refers to the breed or type of breeds that have the greatest prominence, whether for good reason or not. If the one blade grows longer, it is cut off. With regard to the need for "solid stats", it has been legally settled that legislative bodies in the United States do not need "solid statistics" to make legislative decision, however much we might wish that to be so, nor will the courts overturn laws without solid statistical foundations. Astro$01 (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
But is it right to innundate people with misleading stats that make it look as if there is a problem where there is none? And shouldn't we all try to stop misinformation? MISinformation is different then the lack of information. We are talking about using figures to lie. I see this article putting in a factual sounding number that links Pitt Bulls to something bad. Even if that something is obviously not a fault of these dogs. Like how many are euthanized. Isn't that likely to be caused by the fact that they are confiscated from dog fighting rings? Just because some felon thinks they look tough and choses to abuse them and they pay the price surely isn't a point against them, but many less logical people won't even think of that. Theyll figure that they were all vicious pets, which is unlikely the sole cause. I may be old fashioned. But I think laws should be fair, and not made because people were manipulated. (Lollipopfop (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC))
My question would be if the above is correct: Is pseudo science also good enough for Wikipedia? And if so, I believe it doesn't rise above "editorial" in rigor. It is then just a bunch of opinions. But maybe I have simply misunderstood and it aspires to be nothing more..
I was not engaging in name calling. The Clifton Reports utilize pseudo scientific methods and draw quite broad conclusions from their results. Without rigorous data collection, and the appropriate statistical analysis and interpretation, what we have in these reports is opinion. Don't take my word for it, but rather read Cook & Campbell (2001). Their book is called Experimental and Quasi Experimental Designs. I have seriously wondered how closely Wikipedia can approximate actual journals or texts in the fields that study particular subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.45.165 (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the "study" under discussion represents poor methodology. Any generalization made from data should take into consideration its limitations.
The limitations are stated. I do not believe the article generalizes beyond what is already stated in the source citations. Astro$01 (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Below I have made a list of specific unwarranted generalizations, that is, those inferences not supported by the data.
By "article" I was refering to the information in the pit bull wiki article, not to other passages in the Clifton Report that were not included in the wiki Pit Bull article. Sorry for any confusion on that point. Astro$01 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If Wikipedia hopes to responsibly share information with the general public, it should either remove this article or acknowledge that the sample is not representative, and that it CANNOT be inferred that pitbulls cause more damage based on this data set. I'm not saying the article is worthless, if anything, it suggests it would be worth doing a better study on the variables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.112.214 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
One final note! The above alludes to the issue with BSL and apparently with the way insurance companies are doing business. In any sample there will be outliers, or extreme cases. The bigger the sample, the more extreme cases. It is a BSL supporters task to demonstrate that we are not talking only about outliers with pitbull-type dog attacks. This is because any popular breed of significant size will be associated with extreme cases where great damage is done to humans. Solid stats are needed to demonstrate this, and representative samples are needed for the stats. This is because a normal distribution is needed to carry out many statistical techniques. The distribution in the case of the Clifton Reports would be severely negatively skewed.
If we are only talking about outliers in pitbull-type dog attacks, than BSL does NO good. An illustration follows: Suppose ten thousand horses are owned, and ten people are killed. As horses gain popularity, two hundred people are killed. Do we get rid of horses? Are horses any more dangerous than they were before they were popular?
These are interesting issues for researchers and the public to sort out. Since Wikipedia has a broad audience, I think it this page on pitbull-type dogs serves to inform people's opinions related to BSL and other issues. I would appreciate it greatly if they don't get the perception that we know more than we do at this time, whether or not pitbull-type dogs turn out to be more dangerous than other dogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.112.214 (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
There was an old discussion in 2007 among three editors and all agreed that the Clifton report/study didn't meet the WP:RS standard. I can't find it on the Animal People News site and copies hosted by third parties does not indicate that it was published by Animal People. Even if it was published by Animal People, it might still not meet the RS standard, but right now it just looks like a self-published piece.--Dodo bird (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The editors from a couple of years ago may have missed this entry at Best Friends Animal Society (these are the folks who are currently keeping about 20 of Michael Vick's pit bulls): [4]. The Animal People site itself [5] lists three staff members for the newspaper; Animal People, Inc. is a registered non-profit organization based in Clinton, Washington (see the Guidestar non-profit information report at [6]), so there seems to be a bit more behind it than someone just sitting at their laptop "self-publishing" their materials. Astro$01 (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Nothing you presented above makes Animal People a reliable source for dog fightingbite statistics. But you are missing my point. Regardless of whether Animal People is a reliable source for dog fightingbite stats, there is no indication that the report was published by Animal People, only that it was authored by the editor of Animal People. You have to prove that the report was actually published by someone other than the author, scribd and dogbitelaw don't count as publishers. Once you do that, we can argue if the publisher meets RS standards.
The subject of the wiki article here is "dog bite related fatalities" (specifically, Pit Bull#Related human fatalities), not "dog fighting". Are you sure you are on the right discussion page?
With regard to the subject of the Pit Bull article, specifically dog bite related fatalities, "Dog Bite Law" [7] meets the criteria in Wikipedia:RS#Self-published sources for a reliable third-party publication on this subject since the author, Kenneth Phillips, is an acknowledged expert on dog bites, litigation, and the supporting information (such as statistics) needed to win litigation: he is a practicing attorney who specializes in winning dog bite cases. You can check his bona fides in a write-up in the Wikipedia:RS#News organizations-approved Los Angeles Times on July 20, 2001, either by paying to see it at the Times website [8], or by reading the entire text of the article for free at Dog Bite Law. [9] Mr. Phillips is routinely called in as an expert commentator by U.S. television news media - for example, here is the transcript for his appearance on Wikipedia:RS#News organizations-approved CNN this last August 19, 2009, regarding an elderly couple killed by dogs: [10]. Astro$01 (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)That was a slip of the tongue. Of course I meant dog bites. Even if we accept that Kenneth Phillips meets the Self-published source criteria, the report was not authored by him but by Merritt Clifton. I don't see how SPS can apply.--Dodo bird (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Your clarification that you meant "dog bites" only makes more clear that you have not understood. The issue is the reporting of fatalities in the press and the reliability of Mr. Clifton's summary of that information.
The specific question is whether the Clifton Report meets reliability criteria. Assuming the Clifton Report is self-published, the criteria is publication of the results by a reliable third party, provided caution is exercised in the use of the information. The "reliable third party" is Dog Bite Law; therefore, the question is whether caution has been exercised. In this case, caution is exercised by not merely cite the figures in the Clifton Report but in going to some length in the Pit Bull#Related human fatalities section as well as the Pit Bull#Clifton report (2008) section to discuss the general limitations of methodologies based on press reporting, and to clearly state Mr. Clifton's methodology in particular, so that readers will understand the number of reported fatalities in the context of the methodology and not overdraw conclusions. Q.E.D. Astro$01 (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Neither Clifton nor Phillips are experts in research! The Clifton report section is giving information about the number dog attack fatalities, NOT dog bite law OR how to edit a magazine or periodical! This is like asking a statistician about case law. Just because someone is called into court as a expert does not mean they are such. Does the professional organization licensing the person, or their degree, indicate they are an expert? Not in this case. Astro, I'm not sure why you are so attached to this report? I could go outside and count the stars. Would you consider me an astrologist and publish my numbers as factual? No! Because I don't know how to count starts using the proper tools!!!
I believe this study is massively biased and only studies using primary data should be covered in such detail. Why are studies like these not given the same profile?
Fatal dog attacks in Canada (1990 - 2007). Canadian Veterinary Journal. Only one of 28 involves a pit bull breed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/
At minimum, could we add a section..or minimally a mention...of media bias? Is it fair to include two "studies" based on media reports when there's evidence to suggest that media reports are biased and flawed?
Thanks for your prompt feedback on these comments, by the way!
05:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicacheex (talk • contribs)
There was no reason not to include the report from the CVJ, other than no one was aware of it, so it has been added. I should point out that this study used the same methodology as the Clifton Report, viz., a review of press accounts. Astro$01 (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The "Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs" report is about dog bites; the Pit Bull article is focused on fatalities precisely because they are more likely to be reported and because independent documentation and verification of the cause of death is available through the reports of medical examiners. Astro$01 (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The first "National Canine Research Council" (NCRC) citation lists a series of factors that can affect stories in the news media, but it is not clear how these would affect stories about pit bulls more than any other news story. In general, media reports are considered to be reliable sources in Wikipedia: I should think a claim of systematic media bias in the reporting of deaths attributed to pit bull-type dogs would be an "extraordinary claim" that would require "extraordinary evidence". Astro$01 (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The second NCRC item questions statistical sampling of "dog bites" and "serious incidents" but does not express a similar concern with reported fatalities, which is the data reported by the Pit Bull article. This seems to make sense to me, since the "fatalities" are not a sampling but represent the entire population of fatal attacks, at least as far as can be determined. If you have evidence of unreported fatalities then I should think any number of people would be very interested in them. In any event, the Pit Bull article does not assert any of the "fictions" posited by the NCRC article. Astro$01 (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The bottom line is that I don't see a reason to mention or discuss systematic "media bias" with regard to reported dog bite-related fatalities, or to pit bull-type dogs in general, unless you can meet the standard of "extraordinary evidence" required to overcome the presumptions of WP:RS. Astro$01 (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Specific generalizations in the article that are not supported by the data
1. "Pit bulls seem to differ behaviorally from other dogs in having far less inhibition about attacking people who are larger than they are." (pg. 4)
Here no confounds have been controlled for, such as that pitbull-type dogs may be in situations where attack is more often provoked by adults. Second, there is no representative sample of pitbull-type dogs, or attacks by such dogs. These data do not support the claim that pitbull-type dogs attack people who are larger than they are more often than other breeds.
2. "They are also notorious for attacking seemingly without warning, a tendency exacerbated by the custom of docking pit bulls' tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized." (pg. 4)
These data do not support the claim that pitbull-type dogs attack without warning. This statement is based on the depiction of the dogs in the popular media. In addition, pitbull-type dogs' tails are rarely docked, and tail wagging or stillness is not a salient warning sign.
3. "In more than two-thirds of the cases I have logged, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question." (pg. 4)
These data are self-report, and in the case that one's dog fatally attacks someone, one would not wish to report prior instances of aggression toward people. In a rigorous study, this confound would be controlled for, and we could judge its effect. Not the case here.
"4. Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable." (pg. 7)
The data do not support these inferences. Once again, there is no measurement of variables related to the dog attacks that may confound the validity of a conclusion that particular breeds are more dangerous than others. Once again, there is no representative sample. Not even going there related to the temperament comment..
The quote refers to other information known at the time the report was written on insurance industry practices regarding pit bull-type dogs (see the wiki section on liability insurance). The quote is included to provide context for why those practices have been implemented, though not everyone may believe those practices to be justified. Astro$01 (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
5. "If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed" (pg. 7)
Same as above. To conclude that "often" people are killed when pitbull-type dogs attack is a gross over-generalization. These data do not support the calculation of any statistic that would lend to such a conclusion.
I supppose whether you believe the data supports a statement that "often someone is maimed or killed" depends on how you define "often." The fact that pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were reported to have been involved in more canine homicides (about 64% of the total identifed in the report) than any other type or breed of dog seems to have convinced the insurance industry and others identified in the breed-specific legislation page that the killings happen "often" when compared to canine homicides committed by other breeds or breed-types, and that they happen "often enough" that action is required. Astro$01 (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
No it does not depend on my opinion of what often is. "Often" cannot be quantified based on these data. No meaningful comparison between breeds can be made based on these data. That was my entire point. That is also why asking one's local university professor would be a good exercise. I just can't really provide an understanding of how science should work in one discussion such as this. "Often enough" cannot be judged either. These judgments are really being made according to "hype" and intuition. Or to use a better word, "bias". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.45.165 (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
To conclude, this article is basically an editorial. The limitations of these data render invalid any general conclusion derived from them. Why include a "study" if disclaimers reduce it to an editorial. Shall we include my opinion on Wikipedia as well?!? And I think the issue of BSL is certainly relevant to this discussion, since the Clifton reports include two pages addressing BSL. If BSL isn't relevant to this article, then the Clifton reports certainly aren't either!
The study is included because it reports research by a third-party source on information that bears directly other information discussed elsewhere in the wiki, namely the known and verified insurance industry restrictions on pit bull-type dogs. The wiki page includes the original disclaimers to ensure people reading the article are aware of the methodology and links back to the original papers so that wiki readers can judge any shortcomings for themselves; the wiki page also has a general discussion on the issues with surveying press reportage to determine the number of canine homicides in the United States or other jurisdictions when the government does not collect or provide that information. Astro$01 (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The Clifton report is not independent research. Its a survey of media articles that mentions dog attacks. One in which the source data has not been provided and is unverifiable. The numbers are full of holes, as are his breed assumptions that he bases the analysis on.
Several examples:
Mr Clifton stated that Huskies 'almost never inflict severe injury on adults', but he fails to notice that 67% of Husky attacks aren't attributed to either children or adults. This is not uncommon. Most of the statistics indicate erroneous numbers and conclusions.
His breed estimates assume 20,000,000 fewer dogs in the US and Canada than the consensus.
His statement that pit bulls "are also notorious for attacking seemingly without warning" has been proven false in behavioral studies.
His following statement, "a tendency exacerbated by the custom of docking pit bulls’ tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized." is just wrong. No one docks a pit bull tail unless its been injured in an accident, let alone to hide warning signs of an attack.
Don't say that the quote is not included in the article, the article clearly endorses and uses examples of the data in the report.Dwightlathan77 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I think these lists are a bit excessive per WP:UNDUE. Maybe in an article about dog attacks in general (because not all of the dogs are reported as pit bull type dogs). We don't list specific fatalities in pages for Rottweilers or German Shepherds, and we certainly don't list auto fatalities for certain breeds. If we're going to cover fatalities reported to be attributed to pit bull type dogs, a general summary should suffice. I feel bad deleting these sections because you obviously put a lot of work into putting them together; I just think they are out-of-place in this article. What do you think about creating a separate article about dog-related fatalities/attacks? OhNoitsJamieTalk04:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you think about discussing your proposed changes before you make wholesale deletions when you think something is "a bit excessive"?
The general summary is much better for this article. As I said, the detailed summary would make sense for a more general article on dog attacks in the United States, as it is a leading cause of injury in some age groups [12]. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I am finding a number of "famous owners" in the list who did not own pit bulls. I will append to this list as I review the page: Astro$01 (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
A general note on this; unfortunately, it appears that many of the "lists of famous owners" on the web are simply copies of other lists, and it's hard to judge if the original list they were copied from was authoritative. Most sources agree that Bogart and Bacall had a dog Harvey; some identify it as a boxer, others as a "pit bull type" (and I suppose some very loose definitions of a pit would include boxers, though I personally wouldn't). Trying to track down more info on W Wilson supposedly using a pit-type dog to hunt rats in the White House basement. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The Bogart discussion includes a link to the photo of Mr. Bogart, Ms. Bacall, and their son with Harvey - the photographer identified it as a boxer.
I agree that the "lists" are really copies of information from someone else, unless they have provided a source citation. That is why I'm trying to clean up the section by finding good original source or other research material, rather than relying on a list that someone compiled on their website. Astro$01 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The wiki article is about pit bulls, or dogs with a significant mix of American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, or Staffordshire Terrier breeds. The picture of Ms. Silverstone's dog (see external reference above) clearly shows that it does not even remotely resemble any of the pit bull-type breeds shown in the article. If there is a "pit bull" somewhere in its family tree then the component is not significant, and therefore the dog is not a "pit bull" under the definitions used in the wiki article. Astro$01 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I've met two two siblings that were the product of a pit bull and a chihuahua. One looked like a small pit bull, the other looked like a large chihuahua. On the other hand, the fact that it's at least a 3-way mix, the dog may not be an appropriate representation of any particular breed, and it probably better classified as a "mutt." Given your interpretation above of what constitutes a pit bull, Teddy's Roosevelt's Bull Terrier should probably be excluded as well, correct? OhNoitsJamieTalk17:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree Ms. Silverstone's dog should be considered a "mutt" (or "mixed breed") based on the photographic evidence and that it should not justify including Ms. Silverstone on the list of "famous pit bull owners." Astro$01 (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
If you have a photograph of Teddy Roosevelt's dog, I'll take a look at it and be willing to reconsider whether his dog should be considered a pit bull-type dog; until then, it seems reasonable to go with the description of his dog as a "bull terrier" in contemporary news accounts and therefore as a pit bull-type dog given the breed history outlined in the wiki article. Astro$01 (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The article suggests that while Staffordshire Bull Terriers are PBs, American Bulldogs and Bull terriers are not. Most sources I've seen simply describe Roosevelts dogs as a Bull Terrier. However, from the few photos I've found [18][19], it's hard to say....head is not domed like contemporary Bull Terriers, and head is not shaped the same as Staffordshire either. May be a result of evolving breeding standards or naming conventions, hard to say. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Bull Terrier circa 1915. The photograph of the "Bull Terrier circa 1915" from the bull terrier page does not have the "egg face" of the modern bull terrier, so I would not expect to see the egg-face feature on President Roosevelt's "bull terrier." I think it is important, when reading contemporary accounts, to keep in mind that the name "bull terrier" and its various cognates referred to the predecessors of the modern pit bull-type dogs in the late 19th and early 20th centuries: at least, that is what the wiki article currently states based on the AKC and UKC sources. Astro$01 (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
No. President T. Roosevelt's dog was not a Bull Terrier, or "English Bull Terrier" as the breed is now known, but a bulldog-terrier hybrid "bull terrier" as they were contemporaneously known in the early 20th century, or what is now known as a pit bull-type dog. The American Bulldog is a mid-20th century recreation/restoration of the closest surviving relative of the Old English Bulldog, and therefore most closely approximates half of the "bull-terrier" hybrid from which pit bull-type dogs were derived. It is not a pit bull-type dog since the pit bull-type dog is at its core a bulldog/terrier hybrid, not a bulldog. Astro$01 (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Right. "Sgt. Stubby" was also called a "bull terrier" and is classified in the article as a pit-bull type dog: he looked nothing like the modern Bull Terrier. I will add some text in the front to make that clearer. Do you think the "history" text for the constituent breeds needs clarification in this regard? Astro$01 (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Generally speaking, the history sections are pretty well-written and organized. I guess if anything, it could be a bit more explicit about how terms describing dogs have evolved. I think in rereading the history section (especially the section on Staffies) it's definitely implied that the terminology and breeding has evolved, but it wouldn't hurt to be a tad more explicit, particularly what "bull terrier" used to refer to as opposed to what it refers to now. ("The dog formerly known as a bull terrier"? Kidding!). The history, as muddled as it is, is not easy to write about in simple terms I suppose. OhNoitsJamieTalk01:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
She owns a golden retriever and a schnauzer (see [20]). with a photo of her with her dogs.
Not according to her autobiography (ref added to article) and this new item. In fact, her pit-bull mix is trained to detect when she's having a blood-sugar issue. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Added Helen Keller per her book, The story of my life. This book was published in 1903, so Ms. Keller's description of some of her dogs as "bull terriers" justifies her inclusion in the list since the Pit Bull article extends the definition of "pit bull-type dogs" to include dogs of the late 19th and early 20th century dogs contemporaneously labeled as "bull terriers". Astro$01 (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed this article for good article status, and cannot pass it at this time. Technically, the article could be quick-failed under the criteria that there is still a valid cleanup tag within the article (the Famous Owners section). However, since that cleanup tag is relatively minor, and the rest of the article is relatively close to GA status, I will provide a review below. Once the issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article at WP:GAN, or if you disagree with my assessment, feel free to apply for reassessment at WP:GAR.
History
The three subsections under history should each have a {{Main}} tag under their headings, despite the fact that the links are given in the opening sentence of the section.
Fatalities
The fatalities section is confusing. At the top, the article explains at length the reasons why the number of pit-bull-related fatalities is difficult to accurately ascertain. Then, a couple sections down, there is a table that lists the exact number of pit-bull-related fatalities in the US, and what percentage of dog-related fatalities they represent. Which one is right? Is it difficult to ascertain (in which case the table should be deleted or qualified) or are the fatality records reasonably accurate and available, at least in the US (in which case the long list of reasons for why it's difficult to ascertain should be toned down, shortened, or qualified). Also note that the US fatality table has no citation (and definitely needs one).
References
Overall, the article is well-referenced. However, I found a few issues with references that need attention:
The above-mentioned table on US fatalities.
This sentence has no source and could be challenged: "Finally, some governments, such as in Australia, have forbidden the import of specific breeds and are requiring the spay/neuter of all existing dogs of these breeds in an attempt to slowly eliminate the population through natural attrition."
The lead and the first sentence of the History section appear to be sourced from the UKC article (reference #1), but there is no citation tag for them. It might be prudent to add a few.
The talk page seems to indicate a lack of confidence in many of the references given under the Famous Owners section. I'll discuss that whole section later.
Pro-pitbull enthusiast web sites aren't real sources. (Reference #28)
Unaffiliated web sites providing information about dog bites are questionable sources, as they appear to be generally biased on one side of the argument or another (i.e., Reference #38, Reference #42).
Random dog kennel and dog park advertisement websites are not references. (i.e., Reference #56, Reference #68)
The population section is extremely short (for a section with a level 2 header), and the only real information it tells us is that the population of pit bulls cannot be reliably determined. Surely these two sentences could be merged into another section of the article?
Famous owners
This is the section with the cleanup tag which asserts that the list is U.S.-centric, which is accurate. That's the first issue with this section. The second issue is that many of the references for this list are being challenged, and rightly so. However, in my personal opinion, the whole section should be deleted outright. Why is any of this information notable? This section is reminiscent of a Trivia or Gossip section, and provides no useful information. It could arguably be useful to have a section describing notable owners in more detail than they are currently described (such as the cases for Michael Vick, Darnell Sanders, Theodore Roosevelt, etc). But, there is no reason to include in the article that Jessica Biel has a pit-bull named "Pooky" who she likes to cuddle with (exaggeration added for effect). The fastest and easiest way to clean up this section would be to wipe it. The harder way would be to pick out the examples that are verifiably notable, and expand upon them. I'll leave that decision for the editors of the article.
Added citation pointing to the main article, rather than repeating each of the citations in the Pit Bull article, since there are over 100 individual citations (at least one per fatality) in the main article. Astro$01 (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
This sentence has no source and could be challenged: "Finally, some governments, such as in Australia, have forbidden the import of specific breeds and are requiring the spay/neuter of all existing dogs of these breeds in an attempt to slowly eliminate the population through natural attrition."
The lead and the first sentence of the History section appear to be sourced from the UKC article (reference #1), but there is no citation tag for them. It might be prudent to add a few.
The talk page seems to indicate a lack of confidence in many of the references given under the Famous Owners section. I'll discuss that whole section later.
Pro-pitbull enthusiast web sites aren't real sources. (Reference #28)
Not all pro-pitbull enthusiast sites are equal. "BAD RAP" is a registered 501(3)c animal rescue organization. They were one of the groups to which the Federal Court in Norfolk, VA assigned the care and custody of several of the pit bulls seized in the Michael Vick "Bad Newz Kennels" dogfighting operation,[23] and have been recognized by WP:RS mainstream media sources for their efforts.[24]. Using this organization as a source for a statement on the care of pit bull-type dogs seems appropriate given their organization's focus, the independent recognition they have received, and the reasons for which they were recognized. Astro$01 (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Unaffiliated web sites providing information about dog bites are questionable sources, as they appear to be generally biased on one side of the argument or another (i.e., Reference #38, Reference #42).
A small but significant point here: the Pit Bull article does not address "bites" per se but rather fatalities.
"Dogsbite" is used as a source for the articulation of one side of the argument on breed-specific legislation. It is no longer used as a source for the number of fatal attacks. Astro$01 (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The lead of "Staffordshire bull terrier" stated that "It is an English breed of dog related to the bull terrier and its larger cousins the American Staffordshire terrier and the American pit bull terrier, the latter two being generally categorized as Pit bull terriers" which implies that Staffies are NOT pit bulls. I know this is a contentious issue at the best of times, but surely the basic foundation of the Pit Bull article should be at least which breeds fall under this group name? Which article is wrong? In the meanwhile, I removed the exemption from the Staffy article, but this does need clearing up. Sahmejil (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC).
So you agree that the "exemption" on the Staffy page is the one that needed to be removed, not the inclusion in the Pit Bull one? In other words - leave as is now? Sahmejil (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
"The American Pit Bull Terrier is the product of interbreeding between terriers and a now-extinct breed of bulldogs to produce a dog that combined the gameness of the terrier with the strength and athleticism of the bulldog."
I looked at the reference to that and it is not listed anywhere on that page that the American Pit Bull Terrier is a product of any known extinct bulldog. AS such, I have removed the "now extinct" until there is a reference to such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wabido (talk • contribs) 03:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The beginning of this wiki article indicates that pit bulls were initially fight dogs. Actually, they were initially catch dogs. Bulldogs.com is cited as the reference for this claim, and this website cites no reference for this information. Thus we cannot trace the claim to any historical document or person of expertise. This suggests that this article should only be used for a primer on pit bulls, and does not represent a rigorous historical account.
relevance of article
I dispute the need for an article explaining the use of the term ,pit bull, in legislation in the USA. Wikipedia is used by more than just americans. Bullterriers, English Staffords, bull dogs ect, are not classed as pit bulls in Australia, Europe, the UK and various other countries. These countries see Pitbulls as American Pitbulls and have laws specifically controlling or out lawing them specifically not these other breeds as-well. So an article referring to bull and terrier breeds under the US legislative term of Pitbull is confusing and just plain wrong to boot. So surly this should have being considered when writing a topic on the meaning of the term Pitbull. Considering the information is read by more than just americans, so should therefore be relevant to more than just americans as-well. I propose that the discussion on the use of the term Pitbull in US legislation should be a section in a article about American dangerous dog laws or something of the sort, not a whole subject on it own. We have enough trouble with these other breeds being confused with Pitbulls, with out an encyclopedia article referring to them as such. The more common use of the word should be the bulk of an article on the the term Pitbull. Which would be to simply say that it is just a shortened down or slang way of saying, American Pitbull Terrier, which would not need its own article either, only a reference to such on the American pit bull page. This article smears all these other breeds with the pit bull brush when 99% of the articles information refers specifically to the American pit bull terrier. Such sections relating to bite statistics, harm from pitbulls ect. Make it seem that these other breeds are included in the statistics when they actually refer specifically to the American pitbull terrier exclusively. This article just adds to the confusion about these breeds. Say if some one was to read this article trying to find out if an, English Stafford, was a good dog to get. They would finish reading thinking that the are a type of or closely related to the pitbull, when theres actually hundreds of years of difference in breeding between these two breeds. They would think there potentially dangerous which they generally are not. It just makes things to confusing which is exactly the opposite thing an encyclopedia is supposed to do. Thanks of reading and considering my comments. Evereadyo2 (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that the overall content in this page is slanted in favor of information groups that advocate BSL promote, rather than the subject itself.
Based on content from this page Google offers the following page description:
Pit Bull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to Clifton report (2009): The study methodology counted attacks "by dogs of clearly ... otherwise serious dog attacks" since it excludes "dogs whose breed type ... which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price. ...
The Clifton report that the description offers a link to is itself highly subjective and controversial. Courts have ruled its conclusions have been dis-proven, and its methodology outdated.
Dwightlathan77 (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You will need to provide better proof before your claims can be considered. For example, which courts have ruled specifically on the report? Astro$01 (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Pit bull. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
![[16]](http://rulingcatsanddogs.com/contents/canine/celebrities/large/Alicia-Silverstone-with-her-dog-Samson.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NLhEIHPA4D0/RkLsVIg6zrI/AAAAAAAAAvA/iEmZ3k-X7_M/s1600-h/051007pete1.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](http://media-files.gather.com/images/d306/d453/d745/d224/d96/f3/full.jpg){kind=link}