Talk:Pit bull/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Fixed Broken Links in ASPCA Reference

Citations 9 & 10 in History Section: References were dead links, updated them to new page links. Previous links were http://www.aspca.org/fight-animal-cruelty/dog-fighting/dog-fighting-faq.html and http://www.aspca.org/fight-animal-cruelty/dog-fighting/pit-bull-cruelty.html. There are still a few more dead links that need to be updated.--Jenniferiarene (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Letter to the editor as a source?

A letter to the editor by Karen Delise, a vet tech and activist, is being used as a source to cast doubt on a 15-year scientific review published in an academic journal. Here's the disputed content:

• However, concerns about the reliability of the study's data, its conclusions, its methodology, and its use of citations were raised in a later letter to the editor of Annals of Surgery, by Karen Delise, founder of the National Canine Research Council, a pit bull advocacy organization.

I deleted that content with this edit summary: "A letter to the editor from an advocate? No way is this good content." It was restored with this edit summary: "see talk thread, letter raises legitimate concerns and is from the director of NCRC"

I then looked for discussion of that reference and author on the talk page. Karen Delise is discussed quit a bit in this section:

• Talk:Pit_bull#Recommend_removing_National_Canine_Research_Center_section.

Since that didn't discuss this disputed content, I kept searching. I finally found this discussion of the 15-year review here:

• Talk:Pit_bull#Major_Problem_with_Bini_.26_Cohn_Study_.28source_.2335.29.

There I see some editorial OR reasoning and reference to the disputed letter to the editor.

Regardless of whether Karen Delise is considered some type of expert witness, her letter to the editor doesn't rise to the level of WP:MEDRS compliant content we would use to trump or cast doubt on the research discussed in a 15-year scientific review published in an academic journal by established scientists. It's a policy violation to include it, so I'm removing it again and it should not be restored until talk page discussion has settled the matter. If that doesn't work, dispute resolution may be necessary.

Note that I'm not saying there couldn't be problems with the study, or that mention of those problems can not be allowed. It just has to be done properly using better sources. We can't use OR by an advocate and nonscientist to trump such published research. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thats where the concerns about the study and Delise's response were raised. I'm not sure how WP:MEDRS would apply here, nor do I see anything specifically prohibiting a letter to the editor for inclusion. While the initial article appeared in a surgical journal, it attempts to use media reports of various attacks to determine breed of patients, and then using this data, claims that pit bulls are the most prone to attack. For an example, an excerpt from the letter: In the first line, Dr Bini writes, “An 11-month-old boy arrived at our level 1 trauma center after being mauled by 2 pit bulls.” There is no documented evidence from any authority that either dog involved in this incident were “pit bulls.” To determine whether the breed attributed to these dogs could be visually substantiated by a recognized expert, I submitted photographs of both dogs to Dr Amy Marder, VMD, CAAB.* Dr Marder reported the breed(s) of dog could not be reasonably determined by visual identification.. In addition to this, the study relies heavily on data from dogsbite.org, a pro-BSL site which intentionally skews dog bite fatality statistics and does not meet WP:RS. The article then goes on to recommend BSL. It seems suspect to be that a surgical journal would publish an article by two surgeons, (NOT veterinarians or animal behaviorists) which would attempt to identify pitbulls based on non-veterinary practices and then recommend legislation based on their findings. It just doesnt seem appropriate for a surgical journal, and sounds like two doctors researching outside of their area of expertise. In regards to Delise, I think its selling her a bit short calling her a vet tech activist. While that is technically true, the NCRC is a fully staffed organization with a board of science advisors. The conclusion of the letter reads: The conclusions reported in a peer-reviewed medical journal should rest on a foundation of valid data. It is imperative that authors consider all sources carefully and judiciously. Dr Bini and his colleagues would have been well advised to consult animal professionals on subject matter that was clearly outside their area of expertise. - is this not a valid point if the study relies heavily on data that would not even meet WP:RS? If you are not able to access Delise's letter, I can provide you with a full copy. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Any further input or discussion? I don't want to revert or escalate without anyone else chiming in...PearlSt82 (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Changes to Lede

Per WP:LEDE - "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.". Mentioning of BSL and its effectiveness is absolutely relevant to the pit bull topic, and I don't see why sourced content that accurately sums up the Legislation section should be removed. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The key word there is concise. Ledes are not meant to serve a POV, which BSL is. You don't push a POV in a lede, let alone in an article. The section below adequately describes BSL and attemtps to control pit bulls. The lede is not the place for it. Please do not insert it again without further consensus. I will abide by any consensus reached. In fact, I will ask for a WP:THIRDOPINION right now. Regards, --Manway 21:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that mentioning BSL counts as POV pushing, but may I add if this is your objection to its inclusion, then the sentence "Several jurisdictions have enacted breed-specific legislation against pit bulls, ranging from outright bans on the possession of pit bull-type dogs, to restrictions and conditions on pit bull ownership." should be removed also.PearlSt82 (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks. --Manway 06:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm a regular volunteer at Third Opinion. Your request there has been removed because the requirement of thorough talk page discussion has not been satisfied. (Also, 3O's do not "count" toward consensus. For a form of dispute resolution which is designed to help form consensus, consider request for comments.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Pending lack of further input, I'm just going to remove that extra sentence and leave it at that. However, that still leaves a few unanswered things that I'd like a bit of clarification on. The former paragraph had three citations for the statement that BSL doesn't work. Each of those citations cite a number of scientific studies - probably at least 10 in total. The White House also issued a statement saying that research indicates BSL does not work. Where would this information be best? These sources are not included either in this, nor the BSL article. There seems to be consensus against a criticism section in the BSL article (which I can understand), but would this amount of RS be enough to create its own free standing article?PearlSt82 (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agreed with the premise of this thread from the git go and was glad to see it. I thought that User:PearlSt82 was doing fine and did not see the need to put my two cents in when there are so many other problems with this page, IMHO. But as per the below it was suggested, quite egregiously IMHO, that I am not only not collaborative but also semi-literate in English. So I will weigh in yes I agree entirely the article relies upon a lot of out of date sources and I have been trying to stir up interest in getting some better guidance on RS issues since edit one. Thanks for bringing this issue of the dated study up and keep on keeping on.Wikidgood (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Tracey v Solesky

I've removed the reference to Tracey v Solesky - on April 8th, the Maryland governor signed HB 73/SB 247 which reverses the decision and Maryland no longer considers pit bulls to be "inherently dangerous". PearlSt82 (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

20 Year AVMA study in lede

I removed this from the lede as it would be WP:UNDUE to just mention this study. It is almost 15 years out of date, and the AVMA has published a more recent literature review of dog bites and dog bite fatalities, and its relation to breed. That study says: "Owners of pit bull-type dogs deal with a strong breed stigma,35 however controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous. The pit bull type is particularly ambiguous as a "breed" encompassing a range of pedigree breeds, informal types and appearances that cannot be reliably identified. Visual determination of dog breed is known to not always be reliable.36 And witnesses may be predisposed to assume that a vicious dog is of this type. It should also be considered that the incidence of pit bull-type dogs' involvement in severe and fatal attacks may represent high prevalence in neighborhoods that present high risk to the young children who are the most common victim of severe or fatal attacks. And as owners of stigmatized breeds are more likely to have involvement in criminal and/or violent acts37—breed correlations may have the owner's behavior as the underlying causal factor." under the "pit bull section" and "Given that pit bull-type dogs are not implicated in controlled studies, and the potential role of prevalence and management factors, it is difficult to support the targeting of this breed as a basis for dog bite prevention. If breeds are to be targeted a cluster of large breeds would be implicated including the German shepherd and shepherd crosses and other breeds that vary by location." in the conclusion. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

PearlSt82, I can see your point about it being undue to only mention this one study. I chose it because it seemed to sum up what all the others said, and because it was the longest study by the most authoritative source.

So, let's figure out a replacement. The lead needs to mention these facts. That's policy. Can we find some wording that mentions the main points from these various studies? We don't even need to use refs as long as we are being faithful to the sourced content. Do you have some ideas? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I would go with what the recent AVMA literature review says. It reviews 53 studies on dog bites, aggression and fatalities, and from WP:RS - "Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent", and "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper.". I propose we add material the literature review to the "Attacks on humans" section, tighten up the findings of the studies (such as removing studies done from the early 1990s). The key sentences from that AVMA literature review pertinent to pitbulls are: "controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous", and "It should also be considered that the incidence of pit bull-type dogs' involvement in severe and fatal attacks may represent high prevalence in neighborhoods that present high risk to the young children who are the most common victim of severe or fatal attacks.". There is also relevant information in there pertinent to BSL, but I think the legislation section and the separate BSL article is sufficiently covered. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Seeing no further discussion, I will take silence as a sign of agreement. Over the next few weeks I'll start to make these changes, as well as unpacking some of the citations from the lit. review. A fair amount of relevant citations from that literature review have not appeared in this article, including, but not limited to:

Duffy, DL., Hsu, Y. Serpell, JA. Breed differences in canine aggression. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2008;114:441–460.

Dwyer JP, Douglas TS, van As AB. Dog bites injuries in children—a review of data from a South Africa paediatric trauma unit. 2007;97:597–600.

Fatjó J, Amat M, Mariotti VM, Torre JLR, Manteca X. Analysis of 1040 cases of canine aggression in a referral practice in Spain. J Vet Behav 2007; 2:158-65.

Lang ME, Klassen T. Dog bites in Canadian children: a five-year review of severity and emergency department management. Can J Emerg Med. 2005;7:309–314.

Loewe CL, Francisco JD, Bechinski J. Pitbull mauling deaths in Detroit. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 2007;28:356-360.PearlSt82 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I would caution that the study you linked merely says that "pit bulls" do not seem to be inherently more dangerous than other aggressive breeds such as German Shepherds, but even the snippet you linked to admits that the association with owners that are often involved in criminality could increase the risk. Gigs (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware - and this is a major theme in most recent studies. There is nothing to suggest that pit bulls are inherently more aggressive than other breeds, and often times fatal dog attacks result from situations caused by poor socioeconomic factors. The current wording of the article, which is based off of old studies with outdated conclusions, implies that pitbulls *are* inherently more aggressive than other breeds, some advocating for legislation. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Also I'd like to point out that the literature review does not label pits or GSD as aggressive - the most aggressive breeds towards people are "small to medium-sized dogs such as the collies, toy breeds and spaniels". The literature review URL has also changed since AVMA is redoign their site, now here: https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but when talking about serious injury or death, the larger potentially aggressive breeds are what matters. German Shepards, Rotts, Malamutes, and "Pit Bulls" always top those lists. Gigs (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thats not what the WP:RS is saying though. Its says "Serious bites occur due to a range of factors in which a dog's size and temperament are known to be the risk factors. Also important are dog management factors such as neutering and tethering, and child care factors such as supervision around animals. Given that pit bull-type dogs are not implicated in controlled studies, and the potential role of prevalence and management factors, it is difficult to support the targeting of this breed as a basis for dog bite prevention. If breeds are to be targeted a cluster of large breeds would be implicated including the German shepherd and shepherd crosses and other breeds that vary by location.". We should go with what the secondary literature review says and not try to interpret raw data from lists. If you want to look at fatality lists, Fatal dog attacks in the United States has a rather comprehensive list. You can see that pit bulls kill roughly 25 people per year, and given that there are about five million pit bulls in the US, it would mean that 0.0005% of pitbulls are implicated in fatalities. However, framing this information either way would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH if not explicitly stated in the WP:RS. We can't say "pit bulls kill the most people of all dogs, therefore pit bulls are the most dangerous" when this is not what the current research says. WP:RS gives weight to recent scholarly literature reviews, which explicitly says that there is nothing inherently dangerous about pit bulls, they are not disproportionately aggressive compared to other dogs and other factors aside from breed (poor dog management, socioeconomic factors) are what contribute to fatalities. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It's also been a persistent problem with this article and the wider debate that non-fatal injury data is very limited and unreliable. Fatalities from dog attacks are rare and almost always children, rare enough that they can't necessarily be relied upon to draw any larger conclusions about relative breed aggression. I think this is the main thrust of what the literature you cite is saying, that based upon the data we have, it could just mean that more unsupervised children are hanging around. This is more of a flaw in the data we have, rather than a concrete conclusion about the relative risk of breeds, and I think that's what they are mainly getting at.

What I was getting at is that the insurance industry does have more data than we have in academic or governmental sources. With the caveat that that data is often based on insurance claims, with the normal potential for improper breed identification by lay people, especially with so many "bully mixes" running around.

From an article standpoint, I think you are on the right track for the most part. We need to tell the reader about the challenges facing the collection of data regarding "pit bulls" and dog attacks in general, without downplaying the fact that by most any metric that we do have access to, the "pit bull" does rank among the most human-aggressive larger dog breeds, but without any conclusive data that it is any more aggressive than the other aggressive large breeds, and that relative comparisons among potentially aggressive breeds is difficult. Gigs (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree there are a number of challenges which include:

1. non-fatal dog bite data is severely underreported, especially with smaller dogs
2. the AKC temperament test is designed to be a way to evaluate temperament and aggression, but various users have removed it from the page. I think its time to reevaluate that position. The statistics can be viewed here and the about page here. I don't see anything which would make this organization fail WP:RS
3. the only data we have which suggests pitbulls are inherently dangerous are outdated studies. Voith's (extremely important) findings on visual identification vs DNA testing are relatively recent, only from 2009
4. as currently noted by the article, "pit bull" is a wide classification of dog, often id'd visually. Basically any shelter mutt with a large square shaped head can (and often does) get labelled a "pit bull" regardless if it has any genetic relations to the Amstaff. This makes specific breed identification difficult - it would be the equivalent of referring to "shepherds" as an umbrella term for GSD, Belgian Malanois, and many other variants, and the Voith study notes that visual identification is accurate only 25% of the time

I think if we can address and get consensus on these issues, we would be in a good position to go forward with the article.PearlSt82 (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Lack of discussion regarding this in the last year (!) I've decided to be WP:BOLD and significantly trim down the studies section. Per WP:RS, we should be giving the strongest weight to the secondary literature review sources in favor of numerous primary studies. If anyone thinks we should include some of the primary studies in the article, I would strongly advocate having none published before 2000, as they are extremely out of date. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, these changes have been reverted claiming that the RS I'm removing are current. They're not. The primary sources I'm deleting are from 1989, 1991, 1996 and 2000. These primary sources are wholly contradicted by recent secondary sources - in particular the AVMA reverses its position. Why should we be giving weight to 20+ year old primary studies when WP:RS explicitly states that we should be giving the highest weight to peer-reviewed secondary studies? PearlSt82 (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Moved from article for discussion

An edit war has occurred over this content, so I have moved it here for discussion:

• In fact, Pitbull terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers have pass rates of 86.8% and 84.5%, respectively, of the American Temperament Test. This is even higher than some. Additionally, even Pitbulls raised to be aggressive can sometimes be rehabilitated, as shown by the work of dog trainers who rehabilitated the Michael Vick dogs.

This content is problematic in several ways, so let's discuss it and work this out. If we can reach a consensus version, then we can install that version.

I note several problems:

1. An unencyclopedic tone (we don't use phrases like "In fact"). That sets the tone as an unequivocal editorial attempt to sway the readers' opinion. We don't do that here. Editors must remain neutral and thus must use neutral wording when writing in Wikipedia's voice. We must replicate the tone found in the original sources. Those words are unnecessary and can be removed.
2. The ATTS link is duplicated, but that's easy to fix.
3. The ATTS itself is a problematic source, since the statistics are useless for general use. They are only for use for a specific dog, and as a whole they only document dogs which were tested by owners who took the time and paid the money. They say nothing about breeds as a whole. They are not scientifically valid statistics for use to say anything about breeds, only about the dogs which have been tested, which is a very selective subset of the total dog population.
4. That leaves the NPR source, which is a single example about the Michael Vick case. It's an interesting story and cannot be used to generalize. It does not apply to pit bulls which have never been trained to be aggressive and yet have attacked and even killed members of their own family group. Dogs which have been trained to be aggressive and then rehabilitated cannot be expected to be placed on a better footing than those which have never been trained to be aggressive. It can reasonably be assumed that they still have scars on their souls and still have the potential (likely more so...) to snap when provoked or frustrated.

I therefore oppose inclusion of any of this content. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit on the fence about the ATTS source. I can see your point, but on the other hand they've tested tens of thousands of dogs - no sample size will ever be 100% and I think they've tested enough to make accurate statements reflective of that. Regarding the Vick story, it does not mention "Pitbulls raised to be aggressive" - this statement is implied, and somewhat untrue. In the Vick case, the dogs were used and trained for dog fighting, which is a different kind of aggression than aggression towards people - usually an undesirable trait with dogfighters (for obvious reasons). Regarding temperament in comparison with other dogs, I would use this source: https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx - the literature review which states "controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous" - it uses appropriate quantifers ("breed group", rather than "breed"), reviews several studies and talks about aggression in relation to other breeds. I'm not sure if its necessary to bring in the ATTS stats when this puts it in a much more succinct and accurate fashion that isn't drawing SYNTH from raw statistics. Still, I think there is a place for the ATTS in the article, I'm just not sure if this is the right fit for it. PearlSt82 (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Consolidate 2 articles into one

Two Wikipedia articles on the same subject. Lets keep American Pit Bull Terrier it's a far better article on the breed that explains exactly what it is, and exactly what the differences between it and related breeds are by reference to the American Kennel Club. It certainly doesn't need another article (this one) to explain that apart from pedigree Kennel Club registered American Pit Bull Terrier, there are pit bull-type dogs which may be subject to Breed-specific legislation.Overagainst (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Arguments to avoid. Please tweak.

We need this at the top. We're seeing the same arguments and comments again and again:

Please make suggestions for improvement. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, we need to stop using outdated studies. You are quoting a study that is 15 years old, and the AVMA has since reversed its position on breed. We need to use this recent literature review, which according to WP:RS must be given highest priority, as it is a secondary academic literature review of studies. Quoting the relevant policy: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. and Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper.. From the recent AVMA literature review, which is written in the voice of the AVMA, the full paragraph on pitbulls is as follows:

Owners of pit bull-type dogs deal with a strong breed stigma,35 however controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous. The pit bull type is particularly ambiguous as a "breed" encompassing a range of pedigree breeds, informal types and appearances that cannot be reliably identified. Visual determination of dog breed is known to not always be reliable.36 And witnesses may be predisposed to assume that a vicious dog is of this type. It should also be considered that the incidence of pit bull-type dogs' involvement in severe and fatal attacks may represent high prevalence in neighborhoods that present high risk to the young children who are the most common victim of severe or fatal attacks. And as owners of stigmatized breeds are more likely to have involvement in criminal and/or violent acts37—breed correlations may have the owner's behavior as the underlying causal factor.

and from the conclusion:

Given that pit bull-type dogs are not implicated in controlled studies, and the potential role of prevalence and management factors, it is difficult to support the targeting of this breed as a basis for dog bite prevention. If breeds are to be targeted a cluster of large breeds would be implicated including the German shepherd and shepherd crosses and other breeds that vary by location.

As such, I completely oppose the use of everything after the text of "Only poorly socialized pit bulls cause problems." This is not special for pit bulls, as it is based on outdated primary studies, which are wholly contradicted by recent academic secondary reviews. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

What about this version? -- Brangifer (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. These are NPOV non-encyclopedic statements that for whatever reason find themselves here moreso than other dog-related articles. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Good. I'll install it above, and it can always be revised. Other points may come to mind later. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Pitbull vs. Pit bull vs Pitbull (rapper)

What do we think about taking the page Pitbull, which is currently a redirect to Pit bull, and instead have it point to Pitbull (rapper)? I am cleaning up a whole bunch of incoming links right now that point to Pitbull, but are supposed to be pointing to the musician. We could then put a {{for|}} note at the top of that page, for people who are looking for the article about the actual dog breed. (I am also posting this question at Talk:Pitbull (rapper). Any thoughts on this? KConWiki (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Cane Corsos are Pit Bulls?

A citation should be provided for this statement, which is currently buried in the lied. I am unable to find reliable verification for this. If validation should be provided we should modify the Cane Corso article, also. Jay Dubya (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.

It is kind of POV to put them in that category without veterinary secondary support.

72.214.249.58 (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The below references do not appear on edit mode and do not relate to this post. It is not clear what point they make and what post they relate to. GLitch.72.214.249.58 (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The term pit bull is a colloquialism and often used for Real World POV warring. Arguable an encyclopedia of the nature of WP should not even HAVE an article titles "pit bull" but should redirect to a disambig page. My two cents. Wikidgood (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice of edit series: article is heavily POV and very poorly sourced for its biases.

First off we need WP:RS sourcing not 25 year old studies which have been debunked. Here we go The Impact of Companion Animal Problems on Society and the Role of Veterinarians Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, Volume 39, Issue 2, Pages 327-345 Victoria L. Voith

Second notice

User:BullRangifer please stop edit warring by ignoring talk page. I am open to suggestions and trying alternative approaches but there is no denying this page is way out of compliance with WP:OR WP:NPOV and more. I have been aware of the sorry state of affairs on this article for quite some time but have been editing lately on War in Donbass and Ebola which are more urgent. I have held back for weeks actually months before taking the time to attend to this problematized page and for you to now revert whilke ignoring my Talkpage overture is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of WP:AGF particularly when you make the personal attack of characterizing my careful edits as "drive by tagging". Drive by tagging? Seriously? Wikidgood (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the link to my user name so it would actually work and ping me. It refers to a male reindeer, a bull rangifer tarandus, and has nothing to do with dogs or cattle.

I see you mention edit warring. I made ONE reversion, and that's the only edit. My one reversion was the R in BRD. Edit warring occurs if the BRD cycle is ignored, so any restoration of your Bold edit without discussion and first reaching a consensus would be edit warring. Your restoration was thus the start of an edit war. You even cited BRD, but probably didn't realize you had broken BRD and made it BRB. That's how it works here. This can be a bit tricky at times!

I did not mean to be ignoring your comments on this talk page. They came after your original edits and my reversion and I was then drawn away from my PC by real life concerns and never saw them until now. I did apologize on the noticeboard for this oversight of mine.

So, let's move on. I'm sure we can discuss things civilly and improve this article. Unfortunately I don't have time to continue now. I'll have to come back here later. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Secondary review of literature by veterinary experts

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx

On the face of it this looks a great secondary source, with the proviso that AVMA say "it is provided as information and its contents should not be construed as official AVMA policy". Currently, it is presented here in our article in a rather eyebrown-raised kind of way (as being the work of "private sector veterinary researchers") and then our article goes heavy on primary sources. What's going on? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

A lot of those primary sources are old and outdated and need to be removed in favor of more secondary sources. I don't have time to look for more stuff right now, but we should really be including studies from the last five years. I would be hesitant to use anything older than 2005, and the fact that we're still using studies from the 90s and before needs to be tidied up. The AVMA source is the best place to start here, and I think its findings should be expanded more rather than just saying that researchers have put effort into this area. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article overall uses jaded referencs. I notice too that the loaded language about the alleged proclivities of so-called "pitbulls" in that section starts off with a very old study indeed. The trend in more recent material is definitely something I would like to see as this article is coming out of what I regard as a disastrous, very POV state of disrepair.

Proposal/request for focused assistance to lay ground to pull US viewpoint tag

I added I think now a couple of links from other countries there is work in Australia also on this topic so if anyone concurs at any time please delete the tag at the top which worries about the US-centric aspect of the article. I am in no hurry but unless someone objects I will pull it in a week or so if there are enough new refs or sooner. Better yet, you can.Thanks. Wikidgood (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please let's get rid of that ugly tag!

If anything the article needs to be buffed to NPOV. I am adding international material and am eager to see the tag go. But I think I need a second. Wikidgood (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

So nobody commented on this, I removed the tag, and now someone accuses me of excessive editing. The tag sat there since May 2013, nothing was done. Please do add the globalize template back then.

And please do some work then on the international perspective. Here is some help, but I guess I need to let the other children play too so I will stand down and see what happens with this suggestion.

New Zealand is this adequately secondary?

I think BLACKLISTED WOULD NOT LINK is perhaps really just an opinion piece. LOLWikidgood (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Expand "socialization" and add related content, moving the tendentious discussion of "pitbull attacks"

THe part about the dread menace of Pit Bulls From Hell That Will Eat Your Children belongs over the section about Legislation for obvious reasons. And to avoid an egregious WP:UNDUE violation, as well, because the article launches right into that discussion, which is not what the article is supposed to be at all about. Wikidgood (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV implies ackowledging when there is split opinion in secondaries.

I am afraid there may be a bit of a conflict of interest for a salaried appointee of the UK government, which is on the extreme edge of the bell curve on Breed specific legislation, thinks that the bald prominence of this alleged disposition to biting on the part of the ill-defined pit bull type is something which, in its presentation at a salient point in the article, is automatically justified as somehow "nuetral". Aside from UK extremism, ironically attacking "Staffordshire" terriers, there is also the longstanding problem of Anglo-empiricism and positivism in which there tends to be a denial of the holistic unity of things like this article. Blandly pretending that nuetrality is easy and can be achieved effortlessly, that kind of thought process has long been criticized by continentals including German, French and many other schools of thought which deny the neutrality claimed by the British analytics et al. Sorry but just because you thing planting a banner on a group of animals ATTACKS ON HUMANS!!! is somehow "nuetral" does not hold water. You ignore the talk page but never theless I will in the spirit of WP:AGF try something else but please do talk with us. Thank you in advance. Wikidgood (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you're referring to the title of the "Attacks on humans" section? There is no controversy here, as our good sources simply report the figures and we can relay those (in fact, a better source for this has been mentioned by Brangifer above). Implying this is contested by inserting the words "alleged", "controversial" and so on into the text in pure editorializing and non-neutral, and as this is a basic NPOV issue I have restored the neutral heading (update: actually, I changed this to something blander). Also, remember to WP:FOC. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 02:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Internationalization ongoing please help with material from around the world,

No one has objected despite a couple of people interested in talking or changing my other approaches (see for instance WP:RSN so I went ahead and got rid of the ugly template which has been in place since May of 2013. IMHO it is no longer needed put it back if anyway wishes to I am not dogmatic on this. Wikidgood (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ugly muzzle photo is POV

That dog is not even a regular pit bull it has jowling folds more typical of other breeds and IMHO they are rather a bit on the ugly side. No offense to the dog. And the muzzle the whole effect is very POV. The section is supposed to be avout studies it would be more on topc and appropriate to have a picture of a leading researcher or a statistical chart or even the headquarters of whichever institution we feel made the best study. SOmeting objective not calculated to be revolting and scary, Wikidgood (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is also tainted by the way the guy is dressed. The kindof sneakers and baggy shorts associated with gang members and no socks! That is unhygeniec. Really we need to focus on encyclopedic information.Wikidgood (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Problems with mass solo editing without collaboration

Hi Wikidgood. I've been looking through your huge number of edits made in a short time and am wondering about your mother tongue. What is it?

There are a number of spelling, grammatical, and formatting errors which need to be fixed, besides the question of whether the changes themselves are good or not. That really complicates things when so much solo editing has occurred in such a short time. I'd like to help, but it's hard to know where to start, and real life duties make it hard to devote as much time as the problems with your edits demand. They need individual attention, and that's not possible when you have made so many.

Usually the easiest thing to do, and a very common practice here, is to apply BRD and simply revert it all back to the last stable version and require that each edit be discussed and a consensus reached before it is applied again. Then it is made, in a properly spelled and formatted fashion. Then one moves on to the next point. That's the collaborative process in action, and the content will be defended by all those involved. It's a consensus version.

That takes time, but it prevents single editors from undoing the huge amount of content which many editors have worked hard to create through collaboration and consensus building over several years. They have been through edit wars, RfCs, dispute resolution, compromise, etc., all to achieve that stable version. It's a huge slap in all their faces when such vast changes occur without any collaboration. I know that was not your intention, but that's what has happened. This isn't your private website.

So, what should we do? I totally trust that you are trying to improve the article, no question about that, but obviously opinions may be divided about the quality and balance of your edits. I'm sure some of them are good, and some of your concerns should be listened to and dealt with.

Right now you've been allowed to run wild, likely because many of us haven't had time to do anything, and others may not bother; it's all become too complicated, filled with errors, and controversial. This is what happens when one editor takes over an article, treats it as if they own it, and just starts making lots of edits and comments on the talk page, so much so that no one else can keep up with them. All that editing is without any collaboration, and therefore none of it has any form of consensus, contrary to the state of the article before all that solo editing began.

I used to make this type of mistake, and have had to see days of work all trashed in one single reversion, all because I was impatient and wanted to improve the article, but forgot to wait (sometimes it's necessary to wait for days) for input on each and every edit I wanted to make. I just did it, and it got trashed, and if I tried to fight it, I was guilty of ownership because I was fighting to defend my edits. That's not allowed very much in such a situation. Others have a right to their input and objections. I have learned not to solo edit in that manner on any controversial article. Only gnomish edits can be made in that manner.

One edit that really jumped out at me (look at the whole edit history and this one edit is red) is this one, where you deleted a lot (-8,580 bytes!!)‎ of good and properly sourced content, but your edit summary doesn't even mention it. You just cut it off and left a word hanging unfinished. Then you continued editing as if you hadn't noticed. All that content is gone. That's not right. What were you trying to do? It looks to me like a mistake which you didn't notice and it needs fixing. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Got to agree. I saw this article mentioned at a noticeboard and stoped by thinking a bit of tidying might help - but there are deeper problems here as well as basic ones, like broken markup that needs fixing. There is no deadline: if we slow down and work collaboratively it should be possible to make some big improvements here! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering that you open your tirade with an insult, and characterize vigorous editing with the perjoriative "mas editing", which is some kind of concept you seem to have made up, it does not look like you are meeting the WP:AGF presumption so I really have other things to do right at the moment. Seriously, the remark about "what is your mother tongue" is beyond the pale and right there I have to ask you to hold off on any plans because I am not reading the rest of it right now. I can only take so much personal attack per dose. Wikidgood (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

OK I am back. I had to get a download going and, like I said, the abusiveness of your post is not something I think I am obligated to take in one large dose. Hyperbole seems to be one of the weapons of choice on your part. There is no "huge number of edits". It is all relative anyway, but there is not some kind of masswive automated-bot at work here at all each edit is made with a specific purpose which includes correcting the longstanding neglect of this page. Another one of your questionably not in good faith assertions immediately follows in that you bemoan "without collaboration". The truth of the mater is quite the opposite of your falsification and the record is clear: I was actively seeking collaboration and discussion and little was forthcoming. Now all of a sudden, having said little at all and as far as I can see nothing constructive in response to my requests, you launch into a personal attack insinuating that I don't know English. So if, and this is as far as I have been able to read so far as I am having lunch, if there are some typos and grammar errors I have no problem with you pointing that out and going over the text. But I did a quick read of mainspace this morning and believe me there is not some kind of overhand of spellling and grammatical errors on mainspace. Now it is true that at times I type say, at the train station with poor lighting, or type very fast, but that kind of typing is I think generally on talk pages. For instance just above I see one and only one spellcheck underline except for trivialities. For instance, spellcheck should be spell check. Don't you have anything better to do than accuse me of some kind of misdeed around spelling and grammar. <Sigh>. But fine. I will double check everything. But I really think that you are just throwing that out as part of a bad faith personal attack as it fits the pattern. If I discover that yes, in fact, mainspace is hopelessly riven with poor English usage on my account, I will return hat and hand and humbly apologize. In the meantime, please refrain from speculating what language editors do and do not understand unless you are genuinely trying to help ESL speakers. I don't think anyone would accept your suggestion that my writing indicates that I am not a native speaker of English and your interest in personal attacks is far more corrosive of WP than any mistakes which you may be pointing out. Wikidgood (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I empathize with your remark "real life duties make it hard to devote as much time" as needed. Well yes precisely. Which is why I put up some calls for assistance on Talk, and also on RSN, which I had read before but apparently not enough because you BIT about some RSN etiquette you claim I violated. Methinks the hombre doth protest too much...how about slowing down on the finger pointing and getting on to collaboration. Wikidgood (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your remark : Usually the easiest thing to do, and a very common practice here, is to apply BRD and simply revert it all back to the last stable version and require that each edit be discussed and a consensus reached before it is applied again.

Any revert has to be justified on its own merits. You cannot complain that you are working long hours on the job and don't like new editors upsetting this "stable version" conception of yours but don't have any time to actually justify your reversions. That is reversion just for the sake of reversion and although it may be in good faith if one does not know otherwise, it kind of amountst o disruptive editing and biting. Where would WP be if people who are bringing a fresh vision to a page are AUTOMATICALLY reverted for no better reason than that the Watchlisters are enamored of the existing text and don't have the time to actually read up on things and figure out what is going on and what the best course of action is. That is really just downright silly, at best. You have been around WP long enough to know better than to suggest a policy like that, or maybe I have been away too much to realize that maybe WP has taken a turn for the worse. At any rate the test is the WP policies - NPOV, RS, etc. - in a presumption of GF and if you can't give a legitinate policy compliant reason for reverts, you are on the edge of edit warring. Please don't. Wikidgood (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your remark: "it's hard to know where to start" I will help you with that. Please see the above section regarding the perjorative photograph of the muzzled dog and handler.

Regarding " That's the collaborative process in action" no it is just one variant. You have not presented a characterization of "the" collaborative process you have presented "a" collaborative process. I am trying not to too frequently bring this up (an apology on your part might help) but this is rather ironic since you opened this thread with the insinuation that I was semi-literate in English. I know it is bad form for me to bring that up again which is why I prefer to put all this on the back burner for a while except that I am concerned that you will muster up some kind of so called "consensus" when I am off line and sabotage my work. I resent your failure to recognize that making an ADDITION of ADDITIONAL material constitutes "undoing other editors work". That is yet another example of the many incorrect assumptions in your criticism of my work. Some of what was doing was in direct response to the template which sat there since May 2013 asking for a more international perspective. I did exactly that, not the most fantastic additions, but at least some material from secondaries in other areas...exactly what was asked for in the " collaborative' template. Invested in the stable version and all that "work" for however long you have been why did you never add international material? Now someone comes along and does so, and you attack them as "mass editing".

Ironically, I came to this page today intending to add a couple of references and some mainspace text about New Zealand but got sidetracked by all of this. I don't have time left. If you wish add back the template re globalization if you wish, it makes the page rather ugly but then so does that hideous graphic of the muzzled canine and its human handler. I think I have answered enough for now although there might be some other legitimate concerns in your complaint but so far all I see is a stable-version bias, page-ownership tendencies and very little in the way of substantive suggestions - while you completely ignore my threads positing suggestions, requesting comment and collaboration. Really I think I should be able to continue to work but so then please do go ahead please take charge of internationalization I will be offline for a while soon I hope to see more material added then...thank you in advance.Wikidgood (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikidgood (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow! I thought AGF applied to talk pages, but I guess not here. I'm out'a here. Too much ownership, strong emotion, and defensiveness. This is toxic.

All you needed to say was "English, with an American twang", or "the Queen's English", or "Aussie English", or something like that, and then just calmly address my concerns. If you didn't understand some of my lingo, you could just ask. Being civil and AGF is really very simple.

There is one thing you have not addressed. Will you please fix this huge deletion you seem to have made by accident? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I am looking into this right away. It looks like an interim errata that would routinely have been fixed on the next edit...it is being looked into. As for your swan song I wish you would not take it that way. Sorry but with the opening salvo implying that I am someone who does not speak read and write English that toxified the atmosphere. But anytime you wish to return to the discussion I have no problem WP:AGF I think we all want the same things. No one should have to apologize for net improvements but that said I accept the criticism that perhaps I can slow down and be more careful to double check syntax and so forth before hitting publish. I promise to use preview at least 300% more often than I have, and for the next several editing sessions on each and every edit to Pit bull mainspace since the velocity of editing has perhaps been at the expense of neatness. That said, I hope we can collaborate and bring this up for a GA nomination sometime before the next Pit Bull awareness month. Thanks.Wikidgood (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like an erasure accidentally incurred in the process of making the edit notated in the edit commentary and I have windows open to restore the content right now. Sorry I think it has to do with why I hate Windows 8 and am installing dual boot Ubuntu despite the many hazards of UEFI overuling BIOS with Secureboot. The moment the edge of my hand touches the touchpad all kinds of unintended consequences result and I have lost entire emails as a result of that. This is an explanation not an excuse and the restoration is current work in progress. Thanks for pointing that out. Wikidgood (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

OK looking much improved here is the proof of the pudding diff.

Proposal: How about a things to do template

Someone said that they had so many things they wanted to look at that they were, more or less, bewildered. I actually agree that there is such a long way WP process could go on improving this article that a systematic widget would be helpful rather than harmful. It would help us sort things out and probably build the collaborative spirit as well. Any thoughts?Wikidgood (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have too much time to find sources now but the studies section under "Ownership risk" (formerly "attacks on humans") needs to be extensively overhauled. It relies too much on outdated primary sources, where we should be looking for recent secondary sources and basing that paragraph off of those. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Icould hardly agree more. And much of the early body of "studies" on the supposed proclivities of pit bulls to attack everything in sight have been debunked. I suspect that when one starts going through the section one would find that many of the assertions have been debunked for instance in "Pitbull Placebo" which points out the reliance on sensationalizing newspaper accounts, which are not at all reliable except as indicators of prejudice. Proof only that there has been a hate campaign, much as Der Sturmer proves only its own biases...23:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Wikidgood (talk)

Things to do IMO would include more content ABOUT PIT BULLS such as really needing a bit more detail in the section on notable pit bulls. There are a number of decent books reviewing famed pitbulls there is no need for WP:OR issues to get in the way, and the notables have a lot more relevance to the genera than the legislation issues. Note that for instance the articles on Jewry do not go into the Nurenburgh Laws at the expense of notabe Jews, nor do articles on spiders go into the phenomena of arachnophobia.Only the pit bull seems to be topically subordinate to mythology and demagoguery about its kind. So...it looks like there are plenty of "Things to do"?Wikidgood (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in mainspace

The opening paragraph of the BSL section fails to mention that, as we all know, sometimes legislation reverses existing bans and also superogatory legislation prohibits it. There is a lot of tweaking needed on this section this is just a small increment please add to it with better citations and yes the opening paragraph is pretty sketchy. THis is a plainly constructive edit and yes a more tertiary type ref is welcome. Please do not remove the addition without explaining what error you believe is made, aside from the fact that you were not first consulted thanks Wikidgood (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pit_bull&diff=630858018&oldid=630857600

Wikidgood (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we should actually trim down the legislation and have most of this information go in the Breed-specific legislation article. This article should serve about the dog itself, and while no doubt pit bulls are the most affected by BSL, we don't want to have too much redundant information here where it would go better there. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be about the dog itself rather than the legislatio and for that matter the phenomena of stereotyping and hatred which is direxcted towards the breed. ALso there is too much enecdotal personal essay kind of writing still in the article. I thinkk WP is in a good posiiton to assert a specific role as an encyclopedia which sticks to a teriary scholarly approach and even puts secondary synthesis at arms length. Wikidgood (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is a car crash - one place to start reform would be a pass of the sourcing. Legislation is obviously a major (perhap the major) aspect of this topic in RS and so needs to be prominently treated here; doing otherwise would be a breach of neutrality. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that we beed ti expand the section on notable pitties and authenticaqte the now-debunked "studies". I have seen worse articles though. Wikidgood (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Good edit by Bullrangifer - comment

I understand that for the time being this edit must stand but IMHO one or more of the subtopics warrant their own freestanding article at some point. There is too much disparity between some of the breeds to glom them together. Wikidgood (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

What is a Pit Bull?

Merge discussion

Until recently, the article lead seemed to serve to define what the term "pit bull" means. The new lead is better written than the old lead, however it seems to be using "pit bull" synonymously with "American Staffordshire Terrier" and "American Pit Bull Terrier." In fact, the citations for the new lead are to the UKC and AKC pages for those two breeds.
Wikipedia already has separate pages for those breeds. So if we are using "pit bull" as a synonym, should we replace this article with a disambiguation link to the specific breeds?
If we are not using it as a synonym, then should we replace the lead with a paragraph that discusses the various meanings of the term? For example, it is sometimes used as a strict synonym, but according to most legal and scientific sources is a generic term that applies to a genetically diverse group of dogs that share a similar physical appearance.
The way the lead currently reads, it seems to unnecessarily duplicate the pages for "American Staffordshire Terrier" and "American Pit Bull Terrier." --Onefireuser (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

"Pit bull" is colloquially used to describe AmStaff and APBT purebreds as well as bull terriers and various mixes which physically resemble these kind of dogs. As such, I think that this article should look a little more like the broad Molosser article rather than the specific American Pit Bull Terrier article. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Agree that a merge discussion is the way to go. There are several articles with massive duplication, for essentially the same dog. We might do better with one meta article and short sections for each registered breed. It would be easier to maintain and defend. We are currently dealing with constant vandalism on many articles. Which articles should be merged? Here are some relevant ones:

• Pit bull
• American Pit Bull Terrier
• American Staffordshire Terrier
• Staffordshire Bull Terrier
• Bull and Terrier

Brangifer (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the sources of these articles, pit bull terriers, regardless of breed, are generally thought to all descend from the original Bull and Terriers, which were a specially bred mix of bulldogs and terriers. This would make them of one coherent lineage or branch on the dog family tree (http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/19cve808miv0pjpg/original.jpg). However, it seems reasonable that if pit bulls were created that way once, they could be created that way again, and new pit bulls could be created by mating for example an American bulldog and a Jack Russell terrier, and one could create a new pit bull that was not so descended and not part of that old bloodline, but newly created the same way that the Bull and Terrier was created in the first place. Chrisrus (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree discussion warranted. Not sure we can fix this. The problem is that there is a need for the lead ( I hate that spelling lede) should explain the different uses of the term but there is a lot of fundamentally retarded thinking at WP in which clarification of the meaning of the term is considered to be taboo. Many articles launch into a pseudo-encyclopedic discussion while making flawed presumptions about the meaning of the terminology which is often the article title or the topic of the article. In this instance, the whole terminology is highly problematic. For instance, the murderous Animal Control wardens of the City and County of Denver Colorado define pit bull via a checklist of characteriestics which have nothing whatseover in common with any veterinary, breeding or genetic presumptions. It is the use of the word which distinguishes pit bull from Amstaff, APBT and other such article topics. But due to the incstuous, inbreed culture of senior Wikipedians, of which I am one, the "consensus" is that it is AOK to launch into an article with a flawed premise because to actually dissect the term for the benefit of the readers would be too much like an elaborate dictionary article, or "originial research". It is difficult to find so called "RS" discussing the use and misuse of the term as most so called RS are actually factionally opinionated and use the term to mean either "vicious killing machines bred by meth heads" or "cute cuddlables misunderstood". I suspect the flaw is not remediable in the intellectual, or psuedo intellectual climate of WP.

Nevertheless we must keep a stiff upper lip and soldier on if for no other reason than that those who would simply slaugher millions of innocent dogs will continue to point to Wikipedia as a so called "reliable source" for their disinformation campaigns. I think the best we canb do is minimize the damage and our best work has to be done on either the pit bull forums or independent websites where we can actually publish original research without being deleted. Try Wikiversity for instance, where original research is allowed.

BTW Christus I don't know about all of what you are saying but it would be considered OR anyway so whher true or not it won't count on WP. WP is not about truth it is about echoing conventional wisdoms as so called "stabilized consensuses">

Sorry to be so cranky about this but among other reasons there have been some setbacks in cainine legislation where WP's dangerous dog list was cited and there have been some heavily biased actions against dogs on other projects as well. Ciao. Wikidgood (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There are actually many reliable sources that discuss the meaning of the term "pit bull". Here are few: AVMA, Mars, Veterinary DNA Center. There are also many legal sources that give their own legal definition of "pit bull," often based on morphology. Onefireuser (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion there is no justification for this article being one of two articles on a single breed of dog. It should never have been allowed. Merge and then we can have all sides putting their views, thereby reaching consensus about what goes in. Overagainst (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the idea that this could be considered a POV fork, but I'm not sure that a merge will be a magic solution that will help deal with the pro-pit biased editors. There is a pretty solid argument that we should have a separate article on the term pit bull, since it ambiguously refers to several related breeds and is a pop culture concept on its own, something that we might not be able to cover well enough in specific breed articles. Gigs (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we should discuss merging Bull and terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Is there a morphological distinction there or is it just an older term? Gigs (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the point of bringing up historical terms. If a breed is like the Staffordshire Bull Terrier a recognised breed of show dog then like other recognised show breeds it will have a page of its own where the relevant Kennel association standards for the breed are given . Likewise on the page for Amstaff. The characteristics that Pit Bulls tend to have should be mentioned in explaining whatever differences exist between between Pitbulls and AmstaffsOveragainst (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm just saying I'm not sure Bull and terrier should be a separate article from Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Gigs (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Staffordshire Bull Terriers have a breed standard. Bull and terrier is just an archaic term like Blue Paul Terrier. Amstaffs are easily distinguished from Staffordshire Bull Terriers because both have agreed breed standards. Pit bulls do not.Overagainst (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Pit Bull breed standards are here: http://www.ukcdogs.com/Web.nsf/Breeds/Terrier/AmericanPitBullTerrier Onefireuser (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A breed standard is for a distinct breed. Hence Amstaffs are easily distinguished from Staffordshire Bull Terriers because the breeds have agreed and distinctly different breed standards. A show champion Amstaff could not meet the basic Staffordshire Bull Terrier standard. Can you show how a champion Amstaff could not meet those Pit Bull breed standards you linked to?Overagainst (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood. I was responding to Overagainst who mentioned that Pit Bulls do not have a breed standard. I was disagreeing with Overagainst and showing that the UKC does indeed have a breed standard for Pit Bulls. Onefireuser (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose What is the point? We don't merge all the spaniels into one article. We don't merge all the collies or terriers or poodles or schnauzers into one article. This is unprecedented special treatment without clear reason. Each major branch on the dog family tree gets an article. Pit bulls are one of these. Each breed should be treated here as appropriate and links to full articles, where the details on the breed standards and such are kept. Here we talk about pitbulls in general. Why should pitbulls be any different from other common dog types?

I would say a pitbull is a variable breed, with certain breeders specialising in pitbulls with bloodlines for their own favoured look. Spaniels are a family of quite separate breeds (All breeds of dog have breeders who specialise in dogs with a look and bloodlines of their own so they look a bit different within the breed, but that does not make them rate an article).

"Pit bull" is colloquially used to describe AmStaff and APBT purebreds as well as bull terriers and various mixes which physically resemble these kind of dogs." If that happens it is a very loose use of the term Pit Bull. Amstaffs and Staffordshire Bull Terriers each have their own article. American Pit Bull Terrier and Pit bull are one and the same thing. So we currently have two articles that are about the same subject. Merge, then everyone who is interested will put their point of view and collaborate on making a single authoritative article on the subject.Overagainst (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thats how reliable sources are using the term though. I disagree that American Pit Bull Terrier and Pit bull are one in the same thing for that reason. If you look at sources like the CDC and the AVMA, both use the term "pit bull type", rather than something specific like "American Pit Bull Terrier". PearlSt82 (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree pit bull is more of a type than a sharply demarcated breed, but there is no problem with stating that in a single article on the subject. Having two articles about one subject (pit bulls) is what I think is counter productive.Overagainst (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

{Edit conflict}

(Too Long; Did Not Read?: Not all pitbull terriers are American Pitbull Terriers, so the articles should not be merged.)

That sentence needs improvement, because there's also a stricter definition than that of "pit bull terrier": a dog belonging to a specific branch of the dog family tree, all descended from the original breeding of bulldogs and terriers, as opposed to other dogs commonly mistaken for pit bull terriers but are not so descended or only partially so descended, not just one that people perhaps mistakenly call a pit bull terrier such as Bull Terrier.

(Bull terriers are breed that was created with much pit bull terrier DNA but also many other bloodlines, so to be precise they are only partially pit bull terriers, not fully pit bull terriers, so those who call them that are not being very precise or perhaps misinformed or mistaken or something. Also, it stands to reason, but is not in the sources so therefore not appropriate to add to the article, but is nevertheless worth mentioning here, that, at any time, there could be new pitbull terriers created the same way they were created in the first place because if it was done once it could be done again. This may have already happened, but according to these sources all pit bulls come from the same union of terrier and bulldog that definitely happened at a particular time and place in history.)

The lead sentence implies that anything that looks like a pit bull terrier and is called one by non-experts or someone using a loose definition, that those dogs are actually pit bull terrier just because of that. This is a very loose definition. The strict definition of "pit bull terrier" is one that is a part of belongs to pit bull terrier clade on the dog family tree, tracing back to the original Bull and Terrier and which belong to no other clade or branch on the dog family tree.

However, even with that stricter definition of "pit bull", there are still untold kajillions of pitbull terriers which are neither demonstrably American Pitbull Terriers nor Staffordshire Terriers nor any other "breed" as strictly defined, but are nevertheless "pitbull terriers". The strictest definition of "breed" implies official recognition by maybe the United Kennel Club or another such organization with proof of ancestry. This is a standard only some of the undisputed pitbull terriers there are in the world can meet. How many pit bull terriers can fit the strict defintion of American Pitbull Terrier? Only pedigree dogs, which are far from all pitbull terriers. It is not even clear pedigree APTs are the majority or even a large minority of all pitbull terriers. It's possible that most pitbull terriers are not covered by the APT article and would be left off Wikipedia without this article. Pitbull terriers in general, not just the pedigree ones, are a significant referent in the world that does exist and so Wikipedia deserves an article about them, not just the ones that are pedigree APT pit bulls, so the proposal should not be accepted. Chrisrus (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The ancestry way back when is neither here or there. Dog breeds are not defined by genetics, but what they actually are judged on. Any Amstaff is far, far easier to mistake for a Pit Bull than any Staffordshire Bull Terrier could be. Seems to me some people don't like that, and are trying to say all kinds of dogs might be called Pit Bulls by a halfway knowledgeable person. I don't think so. There should be a single article for Pit Bull, and the article American Pit Bull Terrier, which is a duplicate article with a slightly different name, should be deleted.Overagainst (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose . They are different. If they have a breed registry: AKC, KC, FCI or United Kennel Club has a breed standard for it then it should have an article. Hafspajen (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Chrisrus sums it up best. "Pit bull" is not just a single breed. All American Pit Bull Terriers are pit bull types, but not all pit bull types are American Pit Bull Terriers; that is a false equivalence. This article is about the type in general, which includes multiple breeds and a great many dogs that are not a formal purebred, but a mix of similar breeds.

Dog breeds for formal standards actually are defined by genetics, in so much as the pedigree system ensures lineage from recognized breed founders. The level of conformity to breed standards may vary (which is what is judged at dog shows), but that does not inclusion or exclusion from a breed, as far as the kennel clubs are concerned. (Won't go into a rant about their elitism here.)

With that said, the merger is a mistake, as the term "pit bull" means more than just the formally recognized APBT breed in reliable usage. Indeed, the old lead did a far, far, far better job describing the common use of the term and the correct scope of the article. I strongly suggest it be restored, so that these misunderstandings are not repeated . oknazevad (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Approaching consensus?. Reading back through this thread, it seems a consensus is emerging. There are a number of strong arguments suggesting that Pit Bull should not be merged with American Pit Bull Terrier or with American Staffordshire Terrier. It seems that the argument to keep them separate is based on the idea that APBT and AmStaff are recognized breeds and Pit Bull is a term with a number of different definition. The argument seems to be that APBT--like other recognized breeds--should have its own page. Then the term "pit bull" should be turned into a disambiguation page, or if there are sufficient secondary sources, it could be turned back into a page describing the various social/legal/biological definitions and uses of the term "pit bull." As oknazevad stated, a start in that direction would be to restore the old lead because the new lead uses "pit bull" as a synonym for American Pit Bull Terrier and we already have a page for American Pit Bull Terrier. Onefireuser (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that the merge tag has been removed, which is a good thing. However, the lead was still treating APBT/Amstaff as synonymous with Pit Bull. If it is truly synonymous, then this article should be merged with the other two. If it is not synonymous, then we cannot take references that are just about ABPTs or just about Amstaffs and apply them to all pit bulls. That would be like having an article called Rectangle and then taking a source on Squares (which are of course rectangles) and saying, "rectangles have four right angles and four sides of equal length." Not only would that be incorrect but it would be WP:SYNTH. In order to have an article on Pit Bulls, we need to clearly define what the term means, and we need to find reliable sources that are about pit bulls. We cannot take sources that are only about specific pit bull breeds (eg APBT) and write the article as if they apply to all pit bulls. Onefireuser (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the article could use a massive rewrite from bottom up. Not only does the name "pit bull" need better and more consistent definition, but the "studies" section also needs to be massively trimmed and focusing more on secondary review articles rather than primary studies. Does WP:MEDRS apply to veterinary/animal behavior articles? PearlSt82 (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is a mess of unsupported nonsense. Since when is an encyclopaedia the place to perpetuate misnomers? It should be a disambiguation at best. -Oosh (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

-Everything in the article does describe everything about the pitbull breed. However, I think the article focuses too much on stereotyping the bully breed into an aggressive breed. I think the article should focus more on their nutrtion, their history, and their physical aspects. The thing in the article that distracted me the most was definitely the focus on their agressivenss. -The article is not so neutral. The article talk so much about pitbulls being aggressive and gives many examples on pitbull attacks. The article does not talk about being pitbull being nice pets or how loving and sweet they can be. Not all pitbulls are bad dogs. Pitbulls are wrongly represented. --Alejandracornejo (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Alejandracornejo: Nicely done here, Alejandra. Interesting to see the kinds of prejudices on these breeds perpetuate on Wikipedia. Maybe after this class, you can devote yourself to fixing this article? Alfgarciamora (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Dogsbite.org statistics

Recently an statement from an article from the Huffington Post (c/o Associated Press) citing dogsbite.org statistics was added to the article. I've since removed it as dogsbite.org does not satisfy requirements of WP:RS. It is a self published source run by non-veterinary professionals who intentionally skew statistics. If dogsbite.org fails WP:RS for these reasons (and has been discussed on the talk page before), I would strongly argue that HuffPo/AP rebroadcasting their statistics would not be appropriate for this article. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• It is not the organization which has to be the RS. But the source that reports what the organization says. The Huffington Post is clearly an RS for the statement in question. Which is clearly attributed. And that RS reports on what the organization says. Further, the HP article is based on what the Associated Press -- another clear RS -- reports. We do reflect what the RSs say -- even when they quote individuals or organizations that are not RSs. That happens every day at wikipedia, and is normal editing. See, as well, the consensus RSN discussion supporting this point here. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I added text here before seeing the RSN discussion. The fact that Huff Po cites dogsbite.org statistics is WP:UNDUE for this article, which is mentioned at that RSN discussion. If the original source reporting these statistics wildly fails WP:RS, why should it be acceptable to post it when a media organization runs with their stats? According to WP:RS we should be giving the highest weight to peer-reviewed secondary literature review studies which this is clearly not. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Feel free to add text that is properly supported. Please stop deleting RS-supported material. Your assertions above, the first reason you deleted, are clearly incorrect. For the reasons pointed out. And the reasons made clear at the RSN. You are now trying to weasel in another alternative argument -- that it is undue. It is covered by an RS -- there is nothing undue about that. Another RS, the Christian Science Monitor, covers the same. Feel free to add additional information, sourced to RSs -- but stop deleting Huffington Post and Christian Science Monitor information. They are RS. If you continue down this line, sanctions are possible. Thank you.Epeefleche (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
      • The source is only quoting dogsbite.org statistics. Again, why is the fact, that HuffPo and CSM quoting this information NOT WP:UNDUE which it explicitly contradicts the information found in peer-reviewed literature reviews from organizations which specialize in animal behavior and studies like the AVMA? See WP:NEWSORG: For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic. Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name". So why should HuffPo or CSM quoting a fringe and discredited organization like dogsbite.org be given weight over organizations like the AVMA? PearlSt82 (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Huffington Post and Christian Science Monitor are clearly RSs. And the sentence here is, in the WP text, clearly attributed. Reflecting that an RS in turn reflects an organization's statement is perfectly appropriate. We do that all the time at the Project.

Other RSs also quote the organization, including The New York Times, USA Today (also here), and Time, the Seattle Times, the Houston Chronicle, ABC, CBS, the San Francisco Chronicle, NBC, the Vancouver Sun, etc. Yet you call it a "fringe and discredited organization." Smells like POV.

There is nothing undue here. The information is clearly directly on point. It is a significant viewpoint -- as the organization is largely quoted by RSs -- and should be reflected. It is reflected in brief; it is only one sentence. wp:Undue actually militates for its inclusion.

You seem to be driven by a POV. Seeking to delete the sentence. Just spouting a wp rule, that does not support its deletion.

Neutrality requires that each article 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. Clearly, the view of this organization should be reflected in this one sentence, and not deleted. If you have other appropriate RS information, add it -- but stop deleting proper RS information. Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

In the spirit of not duplicating discussions, there is an open WP:RSN issue regarding this where it would make sense for comments go. PearlSt82 (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Dogbite.org is clearly a POV source, so these people are right to worry about us quoting them. While they may be WP:RS about some things, they are best avoided as a citation. One way this has been done is to just see what source they are using and cite that instead, if dogbite.org's checks out as fair summary. But that may not turn out to be possible here if dogbite.org are not quoting a claim to fact by others, but counting up their own raw data that they have collected themselves and summarizing and publishing that. So if that's true and they came up with that fact of their own research, we could say (not in so many words, but implied in citations, links, and references) "the Houston Chronicle and all these other WP:RS have quoted research produced by the known advocacy group dogbite.org saying "X is true." Chrisrus (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, what DBO is doing here is tabulating their own research based on the media reports they've surveyed. Their methodology is detailed on most of their pages towards the bottom and currently quoted in the citation. Unfortunately, the statistic they've generated (Pit bulls make up XX% of fatalities in any given year) is the one most requoted by media organizations - which from what I understand based on the RSN is the only reason to include it in the article. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This would be very easily solved if we could just get the fact we need elsewhere. They are right, we could say certain prestigious RSes do in fact quote that stat from dogbite.org, while somehow making a good faith effort to give that proper weight by ensuring that the reader knows that it's an advocacy-group-compiled statistic, but why go through all that rigmarole if a non-advocacy group compiled statistic is availabe? You are right, they're a problematic source because with them pushing their POV all the time how we can trust them to err on the side of caution when there's doubt whether a dog was a pit bull terrier or not? Us citing them in this way makes us look biased so let's find a way around it. What else have we got for that statistic? Chrisrus (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Other organizations do not make such statistics, because such information is unknowable. The reasons why are stated in that paragraph clause: "The American Veterinary Medical Association notes fundamental problems with tracking breed in dog bite related fatalities.[28] In a 2013 study of 256 fatalities in the United States from 2000–2009, the AVMA determined that valid breed determination was possible for only 17.6% of cases.", and "The Center for Disease Control and Prevention notes that studies on dog bite related fatalities which collect information by surveying news reports employ a methodology subject to potential errors, as some fatal attacks may not have been reported, a study might not find all relevant news reports, and the dog breed might be misidentified.". Essentially, due to the lack of reliable identification of breed dogs involved in DBRF, and the fact that studying media reports for DBRF information is de facto unreliable, these statistics are impossible to outline with any degree of certain, and why the AVMA and CDC do not attempt to do so. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

But right here: http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf, the CDC reports on percentages of breeds and types involved in fatal attacks. For example they say about one time period, "....Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs (Table 1). Together, these 2 breeds were involved in approximately 60% of human deaths." Yes, the AVMA is right that there are some problems including the fact that few dogs involved in such attacks actually have the paperwork to prove their ancestry so it's a bit sticky, but it's not therefore impossible to know that dogs from this branch of the dog family tree are involved in a much larger percentage of fatal attacks than they used to be just a few decades ago when for some reason they didn't used to be. Chrisrus (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a 15 year old source which the AVMA has since reversed its position on. It also came out before the various studies on DNA identification, reliability of visual id, etc. I think we should be paying attention to recent sources for appropriate statistical data. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Look, I don't know if this article is the place to talk so much about serious pit bull attacks on humans. IMHO. There should be a place here to briefly talk about it, but this article is about a clade or branch of the dog family tree, primarily. There's too much emphasis on fatal pitbull attacks in this article. We could have a separate article about pit bull attacks maybe and just link to it here. Chrisrus (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Main Image

The main image is nice, but not ideal. Let me explain:

Ideally, a lead image of a dog article should show a dog in a position I've heard called "stacked": the dog is standing with head and tail held in a proper position for that breed and viewed from the side. In this image the dog is sitting and the view is more of a "three quarters."

Here are some lead images from article rated as "good", and you will see what I mean:

• 
  The lead image from the article beagle.
• 
  The lead image from the article German Shepard dog
• 
  The lead image from the article poodle
• 
  The lead image from the article Cavalier King Charles Spaniel
• 
  The lead image from the article Fox Terrier

Here's a "stacked" picture of a pit bull terrier we could use, but if you have another that would be even better, that'd be great.

Staffordshire Bull Terrier "stacked"

The current picture maybe could illustrate another part of the article, but a "stacked" dog has long been the lead image in such contexts. Chrisrus (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Chrisrus, I agree 100% that the lead image should show the dog stacked; the image suggested here seems to be a Staffordshire Bull Terrier rather than a Pit Bull though. It does however look a lot better (to me) that the one currently used in the Staffie article and would be more appropriately used there. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm going to note that Statfordshire Bull Terriers are explicitly mentioned in the article lead as part of the type. Actually, I want to reiterate that this is the article about the general type, not a specific breed, so I'm not sure is a stacked pose, which is used to demonstrate breed conformity standards, is even necessarily a good idea. oknazevad (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I just meant that Staffordshire Bull Terrier picture as an example of a stacked pit bull picture. Its coloration is a bit dark to see clearly with that lighting, so I was actually hoping that maybe some of you had a pit bull terrier that you could take a "stacked" picture of and we could use that.
    • Also, not only dog shows but many other dog reference materials prefer "stacked" pictures to illustrate the breed. For example, if you're like me, you might have seen posters of dogs breeds in vets offices and such that also use stacked angles. So stacked pictures aren't used to indicate that a dog is representative of a specific breed, but rather that everyone uses the stacked position because that's just the best way to get a good look at any dog, and to compare all different dog pictures easily as they are all in a standard position.
    • Finally, thinking about this now, I had the idea of doing not just one but multiple pictures in the lead image, like, for example, in the article [[squirrel]. We could combine stacked pictures of each breed, and maybe a pitbull of no particular breed. Such a picture would make main points in the text clear at a glance and would serve as a summary of the text of the article. So that's a continuation of the previous idea of just replacing the lead image with one stacked pitbull; we could replace it with a combined picture of several pitbulls of different breeds or types. Chrisrus (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

My first sentence in my last response was explicitly about Phil's comment about the image being "a Staffordshire Bull Terrier rather than a Pit Bull though" (emphasis added). My point there is it not a "rather" situation at all; I really wanted to re-emphasize that "pit bull" is not one breed Less someone else comes in with the erroneous idea that this article is redundant to one of the specific breeds and starts proposing mergers again.

And that lead to my second concern, that using a stacked posture would lead someone to believe it is a single breed, just like this dog breed posters you mention. If there's a single stacked-posture image of any one of the common pit-type breeds, someone might incorrectly assume the article is redundant.

Which is why your new suggestion is so brilliant. If there's a small gallery of multiple pit types, then it instantly shows that there's some variety of the type, not just a single breed. I would suggest including the APBT, AmStaff, Staff Bull, and possibly either the American Bulldog or Bull Terrier. But I especially like the idea of including g a generic pit bull type of indeterminate lineage, as that's probably what the majority of dogs that people would consider pit bulls actually are. Let's see what we can find on commons. Anything there is fair game, after all. oknazevad (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

So I went looking through Commons for some potentially usable images. Not a lot in full stacked posture, but some close enough to get the idea, I think. Here's a few that struck me as possiblilities:

• 
  Staffy Bull
• 
  AmStaff
• 
  APBT
• 
  American Bulldog
• 
  White Bull Terrier
• 
  Brindle Bull Terrier

That's great. I'd take the first three and the original progenitor, the original Bull and Terrier mix, from which modern pit bull terriers descend. We have two pretty good angles, one called Trusty (dog), and the other Dustman (dog), although these images are older than the invention of the camera. I prefer Dustman as he is a much more handsome dog and really looks like pit bulls are: what you'd get if you cross an Old English Bulldog with an Old English Terrier. It might need to be cropped, though, to match the others:

Dustman, the Bull-and-Terrier, by Benjamin Marshall, painted to illustrate an article about the famous dog in Sporting Magazine, 1804

The bulldog is close, but with no evidence of terrier in its background how can it be a "pit bull terrier"? It sure could fool someone into thinking it was one, for it's very similar.

The articles about the Bull terriers say they were created from not just pitbulls but also collies and borzoi and other dolicocephalic dogs so how can they be pit bulls in the strict sense?

I also want to emphasize that while those are the best we have in the commons at the moment, anyone who can see these words and has or can take and upload perfectly lined-up "stacked" photos of one of those three breeds or a generic pit bull without either papers to prove it nor any reasonable doubt that they are pit bull terriers, I hope they will submit them for consideration to be enshrined in the lead photo of this article. Chrisrus (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, part of what the article scope is the idea that the "pit bull" type is largely based on appearance, and as you note, some American Bulldogs (especially of the Scott "standard" type, as opposed to the Johnson "bully" type) are essentially indistinguishable in appearance. Also, as there's no real strict definition of the type, Bull Terriers, even with the inclusion of other contributing breeds, are Bull and Terrier descendents, like the APBT and the others. That said, we don't need more than 4 images, so leaving them out is not a bad idea. I would oppose any pre-photograph images, actually, as I'm not so sure they really show a modern pit bull.oknazevad (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You are right, that American Bulldog is in many ways the same type of dog as pit bull terriers from the clade I will call "the pit bull terrier clade", but all these pedigree dogs can trace their ancestry back to a time when Englishmen were breeding bulldogs to terriers.

I tried to find a cladogram to show here of this clade, but the following traditional cladogram doesn't allow any way to show where blood from two branches merge into another branch that grew from the merging of two branches. But anyway here's the picture. please you'll have to imagine a branch merging off the terriers and off the molossers to become the pit bull terrier clade: here http://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/uploads/1/9/6/9/19691109/2336926.png?797

American Bulldogs aren't on that clade because they don't have terrier in them and don't descend from the same bull-and-terrier breeding program like historical documentation of purebred pit bull terriers prove that they do.

And also, if you just had a pit bull terrier skull in one hand and an American bulldog skull in the other, they wouldn't look that much alike. If these pictures were stacked properly you would see the familiar distinct features of a bulldog skull that any experts can distinguish from a pit bull terrier skull, even a bulldog which is relatively meso-cephalic bulldog like that one.

In short, a bulldog is not a terrier, and a pit bull terrier is both a bulldog and a terrier. But this does not mean that an American Bulldog isn't a pit bull terrier TYPE of a dog.

So the question is, what is the main referent of this article, a type of dog, or a branch of the dog family tree? Chrisrus (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Type of dog, meaning appearance and form. One of the recurrent themes throughout all the debates about the pit bull type (such as the above discussions related to dog bite statistics) is that it's difficult to classify exactly what is a "pit bull", because the term does not mean just one breed or three closely related breeds, but a broad class of similarly shaped dogs. Cladograms and pedigrees are useful for purebreds, but not really useful here. Lineage from old English Bulldogs and some terrier breed (of which there are many) is not the sole determinant of a dog's characteristics. In fact, while broadly speaking a pit bull can be said to be a dog who has both bulldog and terrier ancestors (a bull and terrier mix), without a specific source limiting it to that, to use that criteria would be original research.

Also I'm not convinced the American Bulldog has no terrier ancestors; the breed was established much later in the American South using actual working dogs for whom pedigrees didn't exist. They aren't just carefully selected defendants of English Bulldogs, but also have Spanish Bulldog ancestry, at the least, and a very good chance that there is some terrier in there, as the practical nature of a southern farmer would really only care if the dog was capable of working.

But anywho, the point is essentially that American Bulldogs are lumped in with pit bull types in practice (as seen in the sources), and we are here to report was is, not what should be. I don't absolutely think we need a picture of one in the infobox (which is what this discussion is about), but I think it might be useful. oknazevad (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is dog attack risk such a big part of this article?

The section on pitbull attack statistics makes up a significant portion of the article. However, the articles about Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Presa Canarios, or any other dog have nowhere near the emphasis on dog bites that this article does. Perhaps this article can be modeled after the other dog articles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.186.3 (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It's likely due to the fact that pit bull attacks are seen more in the news, and are far more common for their share of the population, for one reason or another. 69.121.144.8 (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to article: how does the breed's jaw strength compare with other dogs? 173.89.236.187 (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Not significantly different from other dogs of the same size. Not worth mentioning, I think. oknazevad (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the only study which attempts to measure this information comes from Brady Barr, of the National Geographic TV show Dangerous Encounters with Brady Barr. I can't find the TV episode anywhere on the Nat Geo website, but the NCRC reposts the information here, that states that three dog breeds were tested - German Shepherds, Rottweilers, and APBT. Of the three, the APBT scored the lowest. I would also argue that its not a notable statistic given it doesn't seem to be independently studied anywhere else. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Pit bull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090719152149/http://www.hsus.org:80/acf/fighting/dogfight/dogfighting_fact_sheet.html to http://www.hsus.org/acf/fighting/dogfight/dogfighting_fact_sheet.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120409220023/http://www.miamidade.gov:80/animals/pit_bull_law.asp to http://www.miamidade.gov/animals/pit_bull_law.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141008175941/http://www.myten.in:80/2014/10/Top-10-most-dangerous-dogs-breeds-in-the-world.html to http://www.myten.in/2014/10/Top-10-most-dangerous-dogs-breeds-in-the-world.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100528053918/http://www.franklincountyohio.gov/commissioners/ancl/programs/enforce_pitbull.cfm to http://www.franklincountyohio.gov/commissioners/ancl/programs/enforce_pitbull.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091122113513/http://www.mcrdpi.usmc.mil:80/ops/housing/docs/PETPOLICY.pdf to http://www.mcrdpi.usmc.mil/ops/housing/docs/PETPOLICY.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081128154537/http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/sr_breed_ordinances.asp to http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/sr_breed_ordinances.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090331182348/http://www.hsus.org:80/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/dangerous_dogs.html to http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/dangerous_dogs.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130316074517/http://www.aspca.org:80/fight-animal-cruelty/advocacy-center/animal-laws-about-the-issues/pit-bull-bias-in-the-media.aspx to http://www.aspca.org/fight-animal-cruelty/advocacy-center/animal-laws-about-the-issues/pit-bull-bias-in-the-media.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090707221314/http://www.hsus.org:80/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/insurance_companies_unfairly_target_specific_dog_breeds.html to http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/insurance_companies_unfairly_target_specific_dog_breeds.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120118043310/http://stubbydog.org:80/2011/11/buster-brown-and-tige/ to http://stubbydog.org/2011/11/buster-brown-and-tige/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111024001344/http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/October/k9.xml to http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/October/k9.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with Reader Feedback

Because this is an emotional and controversial issue, reader feedback may appear on this talk page which can be upsetting. However, even though of course it would still exist in the archives, deleting vague or not particularly helpful reader feedback can have the appearance of censorship or bias on our part.

For example, if maybe tomorrow, a reader finishes the article and opens a talk page section to say, in essence, nothing more than "This article is biased for/against pitbulls!" that is on-topic because the implication is that the reader feels that it should be re-written or edited in such a way as to not be so biased. The fact that it contains no specific suggestions as to how to do so does not mean we should delete it. We cannot delete it on WP:NOTFORUM grounds because it is talking about the article, not the referent of the article.

Deleting such messages is bad because it give the appearance that we are in fact so biased, which, in fact some of us may in fact be in real life but which we as Wikipedians should not strive not to let effect our editing. Also, leaving it undeleted can discourage others from leaving the same message because they will see that someone has already done so. It's very important that to avoid the appearance of bias on controversial articles, and deleting such messages leaves the appearance of bias and censorship.

Instead, such vague reader feedback may be ignored and it will auto-archive in due course. Alternatively, one may leave a short, stock reply as "This feedback is too vague to be very useful. Do you have any specific editing suggestions?" Or one may choose to engage the reader at length as long as it stays on topic/task. If someone chooses to take this route, others should refrain from trying to shut the conversation down.

This is why, after waiting an appropriate amount of time, I will restore the recently deleted talk page section consisting of only vague reader feedback. Chrisrus (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My two fold concern with the post, and the reasons I removed it in the first place, were that a) the anon spouted off about "truth", which is the sort of standard code word used by those for whom no amount of sources can suffice to show them they are wrong. That one word alone tells me the anon was more interested in ignoring WP:VNT, WP:NPOV, and WP:RGW. In short, I had great suspicion they were WP:NOTHERE for any productive reason.

And that was absolutely confirmed by the biased hit piece you tube video that they linked in their post. In short, there's nothing productive in the original post, and per the talk page guidelines, removal was a valid response. oknazevad (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Reader feedback may contain their ideas about the truth vs. what is in the article and references to biased sources. This is not an article. This is a talk page. WP:NPOV and those other links refer to articles, not talk pages.

For example, if, maybe tomorrow, a reader of this article may leave feedback saying, basically:

"This article is biased against pitbulls and should be re-written removing all these horrible lies that it contains about them. I have four pit bulls and each one is the sweetest dog you could possibly imagine. See, I will prove it to you with this YouTube video of massive powerful pitbulls playing very gently with babies and kittens: (links video). See, here, look at this page from www.pitbullsneverhurtanyone.org: (links to biased source). Now you know the truth about pit bulls, not this pack of lies obviously written by a bunch of anti-pitbull people!"

Or maybe they might leave reader feedback saying basically the exact opposite.

The thing to do in such cases is not to delete these messages as it leave the appearance of bias or censorship on our part and be bad for the reputation of the article and the project.

Instead, there are several approaches we could take. We could maybe just ignore it. If we set auto-archive for the page and it will age off into the archives in due course.

Alternatively, we can try to engage the person and see if he or she has any specific edits or sources that would make the article seem more fair to their side, while explaining how Wikipedia works and why it's written in the way that it is. Believe it or not, article improvement can come out of such discussions. I can give you several examples of where this has happened if you are doubtful.

We could leave a stock answer saying that their feedback is appreciated but without proper sourcing and procedure and so on, we are sorry but their feedback just isn't constructive and so we can't help them and then say no more.

But so long as the topic remains on article improvement, broadly construed, and not the referent of the article itself or something else, it's on-topic reader feedback and deleting it is not proper, even if the person is emotional and clearly biased on one side of the pitbull debate or the other. Chrisrus (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality - opening para

The opening paragraph includes the following statement: "Formal breeds often considered of the pit bull type include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The American Bulldog and Bull Terrier (standard and miniature) are also sometimes included." Both statements can be found under the same reference: "Often considered" - by whom? The bulldog is also a pit bull. Really? I wonder how many of the current 260 WATCHERS on this page agree with this revelation? I understand that having the word "bull" in the name might be confusing for some, but seriously? Additionally, the cited website tells us: "Even with DNA testing, many known purebred dogs come up with results of mixed breed lineage." I assume the author was not up with Analysis of genetic variability in American Pit Bull Terrier breed of dogs with a high inbreeding level using microsatellite markers from 2010. Not only can the breeds be told apart, the degree of genetic divergence within one breed with high inbreeding can be measured. Either the author of the website was not up with what is going on around them or they chose to misinform the reader - in either case it brings to question the quality of this website as a source of information. That is why I put the unreliable source template in place. Are there any other citations from credible sources that support these propositions in the opening paragraph? William Harris • talk • 03:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That article draws upon multiple sources (it's bibliography is listed on that page) and it's drawn upon reliable sources while showing editorial control. By any estimation it fits the criteria at WP:RS. So, the tag is inappropriate.

As for the inclusion of which breeds in the lead, frankly no source is really needed, as it summarizes well-sourced material found later in the article, specifically the breeds that are sometimes covered as part of breed-specific legislation, which indeed does sometimes include the American Bulldog (which I feel the need to point out to you is not "the" bulldog, which formally refers to the English Bulldog), despite the fact that they're not from the same lineage. It's a load of crap, in my personal opinion, as all BSL is just fear-mongerimg BS, but it's our task to accurately report what is, not what I wish it were. So the real issue you should have is not with the editors of this article, but with the fools who write the lousy legislation in the first place. But again, Wikipedia is not here for advocacy, but to describe reality, as sad as it can be. oknazevad (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Formal breed definitions of the blanket term 'pit bull' aren't clearly defined by RS and often are used as a catch-all for many unrelated breeds, or mixed breeds which appear physically similar to a 'pit bull'. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered responses, they are appreciated by me. This is the English-speaking version of Wikipedia, and the English-speakers include more than the USA and Canada. The term pit bull is almost unknown in the other 3 Five eyes English-speaking nations. In the UK the regulations on "Identifying Pit Bull Terrier (PBT) types" gives the APBT breed standard (http://www.doglaw.co.uk/pitbull.php and https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69263/dogs-guide-enforcers.pdf). In Australia the term "Pit Bull Terrier or American Pit Bull" are used interchangeably (http://www.agriculture.gov.au/cats-dogs/frequently-asked-questions?wasRedirectedByModule=true#what-dog-breeds-cannot-be-imported-into-australia). In New Zealand the term "American Pit Bull Terrier type dogs" is used (http://www.dogsafety.govt.nz/Dog-Owners-Legal-Responsibilities-Index). These 3 nations ban the import of the APBT but have no issue with the other breeds mentioned in the article. Therefore, the citations quoted in the article on what is "a pit bull type" appears to be applicable to the USA and Canada only, so I have added "in North America" to the sentence in question. As you have stated, Wikipedia is here "to describe reality" - and I put it to you that this is the reality. I trust that this edit meets with your agreement. Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete this Article/Rename the Article

Italic textIs there a way to delete this "Pit Bull" page or rename it? The term, Pit Bull is not a Blanket Term for American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, Bulldog, or any of the other Bull Breeds. The Correct term is "Bull breeds" or "Bully Breeds", a "Pit Bull" is 1 breed and 1 breed only, the American Pit Bull Terrier . This Blanket Term which people use for other Bully Breeds has ruined Bite Statistics and Fuels Breed Specific Legislation which makes all bull breed dogs get bad reps, put down and Banned. Calling these dogs all "Pit Bulls" is the same as calling all Terrier's Yorkies or all Hounds Beagles.

If you research the legal definition of "Pit Bull", you will find many laws with definitions such as "Dogs which exhibit appearance and physical characteristics of any of a pit bull terrier or Staffordshire, American or American Staffordshire bull terrier." That quote was the first one I've found, http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/PitBull.aspx, but it's pretty typical in explaining that this definition is necessary in law most pitbulls don't have the papers to prove it. Chrisrus (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Feigin and Cherry's textbook of pediatric infectious diseases

Why should we be citing a textbook in an unrelated field for statements as strong as "More recent research suggests that pit bull bites are particularly serious because they tend to bite deeply multiple times and grind their molars into tissue. Over ninety percent of pit bulls bites were unprovoked.", which are wholly unsupported by other veterinary literature? WP:Citing textbooks warrants caution in using textbooks. In this case, I'm not sure why a textbook on pediatric infectious diseases should be cited with authority on issues of animal behavior. Since the relevant material is not accessible through the internet, perhaps someone could write the relevant portion of the textbook here, including any relevant citations? If this material must be included, it should be at the least quantified properly. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a poor source, per WP:TEXTBOOK. And the reference is so poorly formatted as the be useless. No page number is given, and it's such a specific number, it needs a very specific citation. And dog bites do not constitute a pediatric infectious disease (though they may be a vector for some infectious diseases, that is not what the citation is in the least claiming.) The book is really the wrong field for veterinarian medicine, too. Just all around poor. I have removed it again. oknazevad (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a sentence later in the paragraph that states "Pit bull bites can cause trauma to tissue and introduce infection into the victim.". While this is true, its certainly not unique to pit bull bites, and would be the case for dog bites of all breeds. I would argue this sentence should be removed as well. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep. In other news pit bulls have four legs and a tail. They're dogs. They do dog things and have dog features. Nothing particularly distinct about a pit bull bite from any other medium to large dog bite. Removing it. oknazevad (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Topic shift

The claim:"Some research suggests that pit bull bites are particularly serious because they tend to bite deeply and grind their molars into tissue."

Citation: <ref name="Cherry2014">{{cite book |last=Cherry |first=James |title=Feigin and Cherry's textbook of pediatric infectious diseases – Animal and Human Bites, Morven S. Edwards |publisher=Elsevier/Saunders |location=Philadelphia, PA |year=2014 |isbn=978-1-4557-1177-2 |via=the [[University of Pittsburgh]] }}</ref>

Deletion grounds: Pit bull bites have no more to do with infectious disease than those of any other dog.

Restoration grounds: That's not the claim being cited.

The claim being cited is NOT that pit bull bite severity is down to infectious disease.

The claim being cited IS that relative seriousness of bites from such dogs is caused by bite depth and a grinding motion.

In other words:

The findings were NOT that infectious disease causes pit bull bite seriousness.

The findings WERE depth the bite wounds combined with the effect of the grinding motion are the reason that pitbull bites tend to be relatively severe.

Therefore, we should restore as soon as appropriate. Chrisrus (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

There are three claims here.

Claim #1: "More recent research suggests that pit bull bites are particularly serious because they tend to bite deeply multiple times and grind their molars into tissue."

Claim #2: "Over ninety percent of pit bulls bites were unprovoked."

Claim #3: "Pit bull bites can cause trauma to tissue and introduce infection into the victim."

For claims #1, a textbook in pediatric infectious diseases would be inappropriate to cite because it is information that should be coming from a veterinary anatomy source. For claim #2, it would be inappropriate to cite because that information should be coming from an animal behavioral source. For claim #3, it would be appropriate to cite, but it is true for all dogs, and not just pit bulls. As such, I feel all three claims are inappropriate for inclusion in the article, and should be removed. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment - The title of the reference does not determine the appropriateness of the information that should be included in the article. I inserted information about the most recent studies. Keep the info on the old studies if you would like, but that would not be as informative.

The reference is a medical textbook on infections, and yes, pit bull bites are the cause of some pretty serious infections and fatalities-information that I fully intend to insert into the article on dog bites (if I haven't already) Pit bull bites are more likely to cause infections because of the 'way' they bite. The pediatric textbook does take its information from all those other studies that are cited in the article already and then combines that old information that has come out since then. Someone looking for information on Pit bulls may be looking for information on pit bull bites. They should be able to find it in the Pit bull article. All I have to do is go to the medical text book and look in the bibliography and find all those other sources you identify as being more appropriate. Would you like to see five or ten references to back up the content that I inserted or is this one sufficient? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Restoring this edit would not make claims two and three.

Neither would it would not restore the idea in claim one about multiple bites, although it probably should be amended so it does.

This textbook can be reliably used to cite Claim #1 because the authors and reviewers must have surveyed the literature about pit bull dog bites and reported they tend to be more severe because of those factors they name, not infectious disease. Chrisrus (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, for inclusion in this article, I think it would be important to post the exact text, especially with respect to molars, and any notion that pit bull bites are potentially more infectious than other breeds due to the way they bite. PearlSt82 (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

In the course of discussing infectious disease and dog bites, this textbooks says pit bull bites tend to be more severe because of their depth and the grinding motion.

It's not clear why we'd need discussion of "molars" to allow claim one be so cited because neither it nor any other feature of pit bulls is made in Claim #1.

Neither is there anything about them being "potentially more infectious" in Claim #1. Therefore, it's not clear why we'd need such evidence as you describe be a prerequisite to allowing Claim #1 to be so cited.

Claim #1 should be allowed if so cited because, in order for it to be included in such a textbook, such a claim would have to be a fair summary of the available scientific evidence. Chrisrus (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, I don't know exactly what the textbook says, as its not available online or through a paywall. Its a strange claim, so I'd like to at least see the source so we can properly evaluate the claim being an accurate summary of what is claimed in the book. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually it looks like my local university library has it in stock so I'll take a look at it in person later today. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not WP:AGF. Chrisrus (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not a strange claim because of the temporal muscles and the typical way terriers shake their quarry.

Wikipedia knows that the temporal muscles are responsible for bite force.

Anyone who has examined the temporal muscles of a pit bulls knows that their temporals are quite massive. You can see and feel the difference by petting the top of different dog heads and comparing.

These massive temporals would explain why pit bull bite wounds tend to be deeper.

As for the evidence of a grinding motion in Claim #1, Wikipedia knows that pit bulls are part terrier. (See bull and terrier, for example.)

Terriers are ratters that tend do a head shake. Play "tug" with a terrier to observe it. Or one could watch one at work, say for example, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KriyiXxD3OI , (Warning: <-- video shows dogs and men killing rats). This is what you want a ratter to do, not a spaniel or retriever, who tend to have soft mouths because you want the quail or duck in one piece so a terrier would never do for that job.

Therefore, surprise doesn't seem to be in order when learning that dog bite wound experts observe a pattern characteristic of grinding because it jives completely with what we know about how terriers shake their bites.

Therefore, there is no reason to violate WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH in this way.

Therefore, there is no reason this restoration should wait for you go to the library to check. Chrisrus (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not violating WP:AGF, I just want to be concretely sure that the claim matches the source, especially for contentious or dubious statements. That's not an unreasonable request. Responses to my initial request have muddied the explanation, not clarified it. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken a look at the work. Addressing Claim #1 again: "More recent research suggests that pit bull bites are particularly serious because they tend to bite deeply multiple times and grind their molars into tissue" - what the book says is that pit bull bites are more serious because they tend to bite deeply multiple times and grind their molars into tissue. However, the two sources cited for this statement are Callaham M., Prophylactic antibiotics in dog bite wounds: nipping at the heels of progress, Ann Emerg Med. 1994 Mar;23(3):577-9. and Spence G, A review of animal bites in Delaware--1989 to 1990. Del Med J. 1990 Dec;62(12):1425-33.. The textbook does not make any claim that "recent research suggests....", and it should be quite obvious that two 20+ year old studies should not count as "recent research". Given that this is a reference textbook in an unrelated area (pediatric infectious diseases) parsing 20+ year old studies to make potentially contentious and strong claims, I think we should forego the pediatric textbook for this information, and if this information must be included in the article, that we go to the original studies linked, cite them appropriately and integrate with context into the article that way. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

When I undo that edit, the claim will be "Some research suggests that pit bull bites are particularly serious because they tend to bite deeply and grind their molars into tissue."

Please note that there it says "some", not "recent".

Therefore, objections on grounds centering around characterization of the research as "recent" are not valid.

When I undo that edit, it will be cited to the textbook because it's a summary of the available literature, not just one or two papers.

If, however, you would like to also cite the papers that the textbook cites for that claim, that would be good, or better.

My restoring the claim and citing it to the textbook cannot be rightly undone on the grounds that going further and also citing it to the sources that the textbook cites instead of the textbook would be even better. That would be making the even better the enemy of the good.

After we restore the claim and citing it to the textbook, you could then improve the citation with the specific papers without first undoing the restoration of the claim.

The fact that information on dog bite wound severity that has nothing to do with infectious disease would appear in a textbook about infectious disease should not concern us so for the following reason:

It is normal that such a textbook have a unit containing a summary on dog bite wound research. Such authors would have to read all the research to write such a chapter, and so they would be familiar with published dog bite wound literature and would therefore be able to summarize it fairly.

Therefore, the seeming mismatch between getting information about non-infectious causes for dog bite wound severity from a textbook primarily about infectious disease should not be a concern, but rather to be expected as a natural result of having to write a textbook unit summarizing published dog bite wound findings. Chrisrus (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with this wording, thanks. I'll expand on those other two and more recent research into the anatomy end of dog bite research. PearlSt82 (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

More references

The breeds responsible for dog bites in one study were Pit bull terriers (51%), Rottweilers (9%) and others 41% in 551 pediatric dog bite injuries; reference = Kaye AE, Belz JM, and Kirschner RE: Pediatric dog bite injuries: a 5-year review of the experience at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124: pp. 551-558

Pit bulls have a biting force of 1500 psi (several times than German shepherd0. The wounds from pit bulls are severe because they bite multiple times in succession and grind their molars into tissue. 94% of injuries (not attacks) were unprovoked in one study. reference = Avner JR, and Baker MD: Dog bites in urban children. Pediatrics 1991; 88: pp. 55-57

In s study of emergency room visits concerning eye injuries caused by dogs the most common breed of dog inflicting ocular injury is the pit bull (25%). Ocular injury includes the puncture of an eye or the eye even being removed. " Importantly, this study establishes that pit bulls are the most frequent breed associated with ocular injuries from dog bites." reference = Ocular Trauma From Dog Bites: Characterization, Associations, and Treatment Patterns at a Regional Level I Trauma Center Over 11 Years. Prendes MA1, Jian-Amadi A, Chang SH, Shaftel SS. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Jun 22. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26103618

"Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs." Ann Surg. 2011 Apr;253(4):791-7. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318211cd68. Mortality, mauling, and maiming by vicious dogs. Bini JK1, Cohn SM, Acosta SM, McFarland MJ, Muir MT, Michalek JE; TRISAT Clinical Trials Group. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475022

I don't hate pit bulls. I don't hate dogs. But using one reference is nothing compared to what could be inserted into the article. If you choose to delete the information and reference that I, in good faith, inserted into the article it is likely that I will be able to find at least twenty more references that say nearly the same thing. I'm sorry, but you may not have a neutral point of view. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

With the exception of the Ophthal Plast Reconstr article, these are already all present in the studies section. PearlSt82 (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Cleaning up the "Studies" Section

Right now the Studies section reads terribly - its lists almost every primary study, in chronlogical order dating back to the 1980s, on animal bites related to pit bulls. I'd like to revisit the issue of trimming this down to the secondary literature, but would like to solicit opinions on how to proceed. Per WP:Biomedical_information, it lists "veterinary textbooks or review articles" as the best source for animal related content, and notes that this falls under WP:MEDRS. Per WP:MEDRS, it explicitly says in bolded text: Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. As such, I am proposing that all references to primary studies be removed, and only content from secondary sources that pass WP:MEDRS be included. What do others think? PearlSt82 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a valid reading of the guideline to me. oknazevad (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The initial content I inserted was/is from a medical textbook. I am not sure what is going on. Some don't accept the info since it comes from a recently published medical textbook (that is what makes it recent-the year of publication). So then I shared the primary sources upon which the textbook was based. Now these sources are questionable because they are primary sources? What exactly is an acceptable source? The ones you like? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The medical textbook reference you inserted is still there, with wording based on consensus above. WP:MEDRS is explicitly clear when it says in bolded text: Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. You're free to read WP:MEDRS yourself, there is no need of accusing me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT when I am very clearly citing policy and applying my reasoning. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, in regards to that textbook, WP:Biomedical information states that veterinary textbooks - not pediatric disease textbooks - are the appropriate source of secondary information for "Other animals". This partially why wording is in the article as the way it is - see discussion above. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

And one more quote from WP:MEDRS, bolding emphasis mine: Ideal sources for such content include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. For the purposes of this article, "experts in the relevant field" would mean veterinarians or animal behaviorists, not pediatricians. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• A human doctor is perfectly good source about pit bull bites and related trauma. We do not whitewash articles to satisfy particular points of view. Wikipedia is neutral. When there are strong opposing views we should report the position of each and then the reader can decide for themselves what to believe. Jehochman ^Talk 01:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The policy is quite clear that primary sources should not be used for medical content, but instead we should rely on reliable secondary sources, which is what the AVMA source is. Furthermore, WP:MEDRS explicitly states Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources. That means we shouldn't be reinserting the older primary studies to counter what the AVMA says, to provide some kind of false "balance", or to let readers make up their minds. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pit bull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130628200559/http://www.apbt.info/tiki-index.php?page=Jack+Brutus to http://www.apbt.info/tiki-index.php?page=Jack+Brutus

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

I am concerned that this article isn't sufficiently neutral. There are statements in the lede that look like advocacy. It's rather incredible to suggest that people can't identify dogs that have significant pit bull characteristics. I agree that there can be confusion in identifying hybrids. The problem is that there are statements sourced to advocacy websites and even to dead links. I tried to clean up but was reverted quite rudely with the edit summary "unfo hack job". Please review the lede and let's figure out how to improve it. Jehochman ^Talk 01:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You wrote in your edit summary that the NCRC is an advocacy site. This is not the case. They are a research organization whose mission is publish, underwrite, and reprint accurate, documented, reliable research to promote a better understanding of our relationship with dogs. Additionally, they have a board of scientific advisors who hold PhDs in relevant fields. The sources are quite clear that visual identification of mixed-breed dogs is incredibly inaccurate. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I am a PR professional and I know PR bullshit when I see it. Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Check this out: https://daxtonsfather.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/the-pit-bull-lobby-jane-berkey-animal-farm-foundation-karen-delise-the-national-canine-research-council-indeterminate-breeds/ Your NCRC is just a front for lobbying one side of this highly emotional debate. Wikipedia should not be taking one side of the other. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Really, a wordpress blog? That is itself clearly as biased as could be? I'm sorry, do you even know the meaning of "reliable source" or "false equivalence"? Seems to me that if anyone is trying to use biased sources, it is you. oknazevad (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Completely agreed. A Wordpress blog does not negate the NCRC as an WP:RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not proposing this as a source. It's a map that shows how your supposedly reliable source is actually a mouthpiece. I suspect you will never understand this because you're here to spin the article to your preferred point of view, to whitewash, not to edit for neutrality. Jehochman ^Talk 18:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks more like WP:FRINGE material to me which should not even be considered. Stop with the insults and be WP:CIVIL. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Civility. Last refuge of the POV pusher. You guys need to stop using Wikipedia for advocacy. Show me why your source is reliable. I'm challenging it. Jehochman ^Talk 18:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I've already explained above that it is a professionally staffed organization, whose mission it is to publish and reprint research, and who has a board of scientific advisors who hold PhDs in related fields, namely veterinary medicine and animal behavior. This is textbook WP:RS. If you are asserting that this is not a WP:RS, then you must demonstrate why, and a Wordpress blog is not valid for doing so. Additionally, you can open up something on RSN if you feel that this discussion needs more eyes. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2016

As a "dog person," I believe it would be both more accurate and true to call the "rapper" Pitbull the "Human" American rapper. It greatly annoys me that he ranks higher than the Pitbull dog breed in Wiki search results!

It's the first line:

"Pitbull" redirects here. For the Redirect99, see [[:Human]]. For American rapper and entertainer, see Pitbull (rapper).

Pugboy75 (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. Outside of novelty records, there's no such thing as something other than a human rapper. Unneeded. oknazevad (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"Pit bull" is a abreviation to "American pit bull terrier"

Please correct this page because this page is spreading misinformation. "Pit bull" is o only an abbreviation for "American pit bull terrier", a breed recognized by the United Kennel Club since February 10, 1898. The concept presented on this page refers basically to "The Bully Breeds". No Kennel Club recognized or share the same information, disseminated erroneously on this page.(Agust 15, 2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.178.138.165 (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The sources refer to "pit bull" as the concept of "bully breeds", not the specific AKC designation for American Pit Bull Terrier (which has its own article). PearlSt82 (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

PearlSt82, this goes wrong. I am not referring to the AKC or UKC. The word "pit bull" is not equivalent to "the bully breeds" concept, the word "pit bull" is only an abbreviation to American pit bull terrier dog breed. If the page refers to "the bully breeds", then change the page's name. And please, to understand what I say, understand the bull-and-terrier dog, the ancestor of breeds mentioned on this page. You can merge this page with the Bull-and-Terrier's page, or delete this page, or fix by changing the title to "bully breeds". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F7:2280:53B5:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The difference between APBT, Amstaff, American Bully, American Bulldog and Staffbull: The APBT and Amstaff are not the same breed, have completely different temperaments and different selection as well. Proof of this is that the UKC is reorganizing the Dual registered dogs. Also recognizing the American Bully as a distinct breed. The ADBA is preparing to recognize the Amstaff and APBT as two different breeds, and also reconized the American Bully as a distinct breed(see ADBA Stud Book Corrections). About the Staffbull the Staffbull is the original and improved Bull-and-Terrier. When the Bull-and-terrier arrived in the United States, received the insertion of Spanish Alaunt(Alano español), resulting on APBT. About the American Bulldog, this breed is a rescue of the last remnants of the extinct Working old english bulldog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.33.31.28 (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The referent of this article is not any breed. It's in the category with collie or husky and so on, a type or category of dogs and breeds of dogs that all share certain characteristics and history and morphology and who all belong to the same branch on the dog family tree. Chrisrus (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course, the article is talking about a "type of dog". And that is the problem. I am saying that pit bull is not a type of dog. Pit bull is just a short name to American pit bull terrier. The concept "pit bull as a type of dog" don't exist officially.191.35.65.100 (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Dealing With "Intense Controversy" About Dog Bites

The section on dog attacks says there is an "intense controversy" but fails to present that controversy. What about the collection of statistics and citations on dogsbite.org? What about information that makes the counter argument? Many readers come to this page to learn about the topic and are disappointed to find a very sanitized discussion. DonPMitchell (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

dogsbite.org is not a WP:RS, and their conclusions are refuted by reputable organizations like the American Veterinary Medical Association. The "controversy" could possibly be explained better, but we would need reliable sources in order to frame that discussion. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

fwiw Here's an example of presenting attacks by a dangerous breed while maintaining a neutral tone. Correction edit summary, "keeping it unencyclopedic". SlightSmile 21:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the section only presents one side of the "intense controversy". We should find some sources for the other side and add them to the article. Kaldari (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I've attempted to add some more information to balance out the section. Kaldari (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Title of Page

The title of the article is misleading. The article focuses mainly on the aggressive nature of the animal and legal documentation to prove this nature, yet fails to develop heavy information about the breed. I think the title should be adjusted to fit the article's material. --Nolachic101 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

That's because "pit bull" is not one breed, but a general type. This article largely deals with the general material, while the separate breed articles. oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Manitoba Study - 2012

I'd like to add to the discussion on the question of the effectiveness of Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) as it relates to Pit Bulls.

I noticed the current Wikipedia article does not include information about the 2012 study done to examine the "Effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the incidence of dog-bite injury hospitalisations in people in the Canadian province of Manitoba.".

An abstract of the study, listed in a US National Institutes of Health website, can be found here.

I believe that the study and the conclusions of the study (BSL may have resulted in a reduction of dog-bite injury hospitalisations (DBIH) in Winnipeg, and appeared more effective in protecting those aged <20 years.) would add value to this article.

Since the Wikipedia article is controversial, and since I am relatively new, I'm submitting my suggestion to the Talk section rather than trying to do a direct edit myself. I defer the decision about whether to include this information, as well as, the correct wording to more senior editors, if there is agreement the information is appropriate and the source is deemed worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbmackey (talk • contribs) 03:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This would be more appropriate for the Breed-specific legislation article with the caveat that secondary reviews are preferred to individual primary studies.PearlSt82 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2017

change "clandestinely" to "secretly" 71.202.181.242 (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. No good reason given for change, which, frankly, would dumb down the article. oknazevad (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Images of bear/bull-baiting

Are there any paintings of the type being used for bull- or bear-baiting? I think it would be a good addition to the article. --Inops (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You could try the categories:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bear-baiting
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bull-baiting

I'm not sure how many show clear indication of breed though. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pit bull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206093816/http://avma.org/public_health/dogbite/dogbite.pdf to http://www.avma.org/public_health/dogbite/dogbite.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ava.gov.sg/NR/rdonlyres/A17F6A0D-7A46-497E-B0CB-CDBD8C325B52/24663/VetConditionsCatA.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150904071314/http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2008/2008onca718/2008onca718.pdf to http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2008/2008onca718/2008onca718.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Pit Bull

Although your description is somewhat detailed, the mention of pit bull encompassing American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Terrier, etc. in the first page makes your comment regarding the UK ban on the American Pit Bull somewhat confusing. For clarity, the UK ban does not include Staffordshire Terriers. As this is not clarified, it does leave the reader with the assumption that the Pit Bull you refer to in paragraph 1 is the same as the Pit Bull you refer to in the UK ban.

198.103.109.141 (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)