Talk:Pit bull/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

REMOVE Dog Breed Summaries (Unnecessary, Redundant)

It is important to identify those specific dog breeds which are generally associated with the slang-term "Pit Bull", but it is not necessary to have a mini-article devoted to each one when these specific breeds have comprehensive articles dedicated to them already. I propose removing the summaries about APBTs and AmStaffs and replace them with a simple list, accompanied by links to their respective main articles.

Also, i have read the previously submitted requests to remove references to breeds such as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the Bull Terrier from this article, but I disagree. This article's very existence represents a consensus that "Pit Bull" is NOT a specific breed, but in fact a slang term used to collectively refer to dogs that exhibit a very specific set of attributes. I submit for your consideration that that the Bull Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier both indeed belong in this list.

These four distinct breeds came from the same gene pool and same breeding stock very recently in history, and are definitively part of the same group of dogs. Their resemblance is overwhelmingly obvious--they are frequently and consistently mistaken for one another (not only through ignorance and the media, but even by dedicated enthusiasts). The distinctions asserted by their breed-standards are essentially aesthetic, and they (all four) unarguably share VERY RECENT common ancestors.Rustysummers (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Rustysummers

I wholeheartedly agree, the word Pitbull is a generic name for a range of Pitbulls, this article focusses on American breeds. It seems this is down to American legislation referring to Pitbull's and specifically American breeds. Due consideration needs to be made to all dogs in the Pitbull family. Chrisp7 (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Chrisp7

"Lennox" section necessary?

I'm not a wikipedia editor and have no experience here, but that section on Lennox seems very unimportant and irrelevant to the rest of the article. It doesn't seem like there's anything particularly noteworthy about that case. Did it start a big controversy in the UK? Judging from the information provided, it doesn't seem any more important than a local news story. It also reads fairly biased in the dogowner's favor. To be honest, it looks like Lennox's owner just felt like adding his story to wikipedia and getting a little free publicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.110.13 (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Lennox IS necessary, as it illustrates a legal viewpoint regarding a class of dog, as pit bull is NOT a specific breed in legal terms, but a class. Hence, the snub/short nose and size legislations, rather than breed names, of which there is no INTERNATIONALLY accepted breed as American Put Bull Terrier.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, if it's to be used as an example then it should be included within the legislation text and cut down to one or two sentences. The case of one dog does not merit an entire section. As pointed out above it also needs to be rewritten; there's a substantial bias in the dogs favour. Stripy tie (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Pit Bull → aggressiveness of dogs by breed — This is not about pit bulls, the term is very well explained at the disambiguation page. See WP:NAME. The current title is not easy to find: if I would want to inform myself about the background of legislation regarding dog aggressiveness, I would not necessarily know that it is associated by some with pit bulls. Note that wheras the involvement of pit bulls in this topic is purely North American, in Germany, for example aggressivness is more easily recognized in German Shepards. It is imprecise: not all pit bulls are aggressive and not all aggressive dogs are pit bulls. And it does not follow the pattern of other articles, see the articles in the category:dog training and behavior. Andreas ^(T) 15:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment I am not going to get involved with this discussion at the moment, but I'm not sure if Aggressiveness of dogs by breed will necessarily be the best title, although at the moment I can't think of the best title - I'll look at this on Monday evening (UTC) or Tuesday when I have less distractions! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Expand This articles does not cover the worldwide view on the subject, and should be expanded to do so. The information on this page relate immediately to the non existent "Pit Bull" breed that most international legislation cover in one form or another - this article should help to explain that the breed doesn't exist, it's actually a type which includes three different breeds of dogs. This article is not about dog aggressiveness, it's about a dog type. There's no way it can match the format of the other articles in Category:Dog training and behavior as you added it to that category earlier today, several months after the main editor of this page stopped editing it. Why information about non Pit Bull breed aggressiveness should be on this page is beyond me. That's an entirely different article altogether. For general Dog Aggression information, I suggest that you look at the already in existence Dog aggression article. Miyagawa (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition to my previous statement, I would have to agree that everything including Related human fatalities and below should be moved out of this article. Miyagawa (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the proposed target but the redundant summaries on "pit bulls" should be removed and the article should be moved to something reflecting its contents. Maybe something along the lines of "dog-on-man attacks". Then pit bull should redirect to pitbull with a link to this article added. Please also not the content overlap with Breed-specific legislation. — AjaxSmack 01:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify why the summaries on the breeds should be removed? It seems that they are the one part of the article which are precisely about the article's subject. Miyagawa (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with move or retitle: This article should at the very lest be retitled. But it would be better to just move the article sections into other appropriate topics. Evereadyo2 (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose – This article is about dog breeds commonly referred to as "pit bulls", not about dog aggression or breed-specific legislation. The three articles should certainly be interconnected by wikilinks, but their subject matter is distinct. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Some Change Must Be Made-Technically you should refer to English Staffords and English Bull Terriers as Bull and Terrier type breeds and I guess the American Pitbull as well, although they do not only have bull and terrier in there blood lines like Staffords and Bull Terriers do. Staffords and Bull Terriers are never referred to as pitbulls as a nick name or for any-other reason. Except for the fact that they may have being called such historically speaking before they became official breeds in there own right. But they are not anymore. Evereadyo2 (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, basically per Twas Now. The article is not about dog aggression or dog aggression legislation but about a dog breed commonly referred to as Pit Bull. The current title is most appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The comment above is a prime example of why this article should be changed.Evereadyo2 (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Twas Now.Coaster1983 (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Twas Now.Astro$01 (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per Twas Now. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 04:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article is not focussed

This article does not follow the standards of an encyclopedia, it is more of a research summary for a specific question, namely American legislation regarding agressive dog breeds. It will have to be taken apart and part of the information moved to Dog aggression and Breed-specific legislation. The history of the various breeds does not belong here because it is already described at the corresponding articles. Andreas ^(T) 16:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the move to Dog aggression and Breed-specific legislation Fireflower21 (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the move to Dog aggression and Breed-specific legislation --Writeableweb (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Common breeding history

Why does each breed history need to re-describe the same breed history in a different way. Should be condensed to describe the breed history of bull and terrier type dogs once. Then go into more detail of the breed specific history which makes each breed unique under each breeds own breed history section. Evereadyo2 (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The history section is weak. When was this breed identified or created? 1920s? 30s? 60s? etc. Tks. FatTrebla (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Further agreed, as, as far as *I* can tell, there *IS* no documented history, other than late (read: current times) defining of the term pit bull. For MOST of the 20th century, there WAS no legal or AKC definition of the breed, as AKC considered it a mutt until the latest part of the 20th century.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Should include the English Bull Terrier

Artical should include English Bull Terrier. They have the same blood lines as the English Stafforshire Bull Terrier. The only difference is that some breeders breed dogs wanting the Stafford look, more of a bull looking dog, and some breed for the Bull Terrier look, more of a terrier looking dog.Evereadyo2 (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This article should not include the English Bull Terrier - it is not considered a pit bull-type dog in the context of breed-specific legislation. Astro$01 (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The topic of this article is not Breed Specific Legislation. It's 'Pit Bull', a term that is loosely used to describe any dog that looks enough like an American Pit Bull Terrier. There is no 'correct' usage of the term Pit Bull. Definitions within certain U.S. jurisdictions are not authoritative sources. --Writeableweb (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Pitbull disambiguation page

Please take a look at the requested move Pitbull → Pitbull (disambiguation) at Talk:Pitbull#Requested move. Andreas ^(T) 22:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Pit Bull is a legally defined term The legal definition is: A "pit bull," is defined as any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds. One of the many available sources for this is: http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/pit-bull/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.219.167.254 (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Restored sections on breeds other then American Bit Bull

The editor of this change[1] removed sections on breeds other than American Pit Bull. I suppose that this editor thinks that Pit Bull and American Pit Bull are synonyms. In that case, the two articles would have to be merged. User:PamelaBMX is welcome to add a {{merge}} template at the top of the page and start a discussion about this. Simply removing the other breeds from the page would create a WP:Content fork, which is not permissible. As the page stands, it is about a group of breeds commonly known under the term Pit Bulls. It appears that there is a consensus to keep this page with its present scope. Andreas ^(T) 15:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree there is consensus to keep this page with present scope; not by a long shot, and in many areas not only this one. My only suggestion for removing was not having so much info on the other breeds since they already have their own lengthy articles. Do we really need a whole big paragraph on the other breeds? Anyhow, I will not revert again, please not my disagreement here. Thanks. PamelaBMX (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no such breed as a "Pit Bull". It's a term used by the media across several breeds and also misrepresented in several country's dog legislation. The term Pit Bull applies to a group of breeds, hence the sections. Miyagawa (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose removing Bull Terrier from list of pit bull-type dogs

Breed-specific legislation that identifies pit bull-type dogs overwhelmingly excludes the English Bull Terrier from the type. The references to this breed should be removed. Astro$01 (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Agree Astro. These breeds have lengthy articles of their own. See my comments above PamelaBMX 23:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources supporting this? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that it should be mentioned in the article that they are not considered to be of this type, with those references cited. Miyagawa (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed reference to English Bull Terrier; added references to specific instances of relevant breed-specific legislation.Astro$01 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Fatalities (again)

Dwightlathan77 repeatedly adds a paragraph to the fatalities section of the article discussing the statistical likelihoods of pit bulls attacking people. It doesn't seem very important (the percentage of Americans killed by pit bulls, especially, is a completely useless number), but I've reached 3RR on it and it's not that egregious. Any outside opinions? Bart133 ^{t c @} 05:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Any number of reasons could be given to remove this: Not a useful number, based on original research, the citations provided do not support the .000... number, the number only includes U.S. figures, etc, etc. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There are other issues with this paragraph. For example, it says

"Beginning in the 1970s studies were undertaken that attempted to determine the danger specific breeds posed to public safety. The studies were primarily based on press coverage of dog attacks and nationwide breed population estimates." Which studies? Was that their intended purpose? Was that their methodology? You will need a citation for this.

"Most identified pit bull type dogs as a primary cause of dog related deaths. As a result of these surveys several countries and numerous regions have developed breed specific legislation identifying pit bulls as 'vicious' or 'dangerous' dog breeds." Which legislation passed based on the results of a survey? You will need a citation for this.

Recommend deleting the paragraph if the statements cannot be corroborated. Astro$01 (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Astro$01 (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph discusses weaknesses in the methods used to calculate the number of fatal attacks by breed, emphasizing the reliance on media reports for most studies. However, it specifically neglects to mention that the CDC study also relied on a database of fatal attacks by breed maintained by the Humane Society of the United States. Nowhere in the section is there any discussion of this database and the methodological standards used in maintaining it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.17.186 (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

- Hi!, I "fixed" that little 'Attacks on Humans' section, it's horrible... and now its GONE! -Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kat-Sapien (talk • contribs) 02:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Oh god the Paragraph is back, I will delete itRadioactiveplayful (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Radioactiveplayful

Poor Intro

As it is written now... "Research has been conducted into human fatalities related to pit bull type dogs, due to a number of well-publicized incidents." Research by whom? Well-publicized incidents, such as what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.46.213 (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The current text seems appropriate as "common knowledge" given WP:Common knowledge. Astro$01 (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Misleading grouping of distinct, unrelated breeds under the heading Pit Bull

I feel this page is grossly misleading, in that the term "Pit Bull", or "Pitbull" correctly refers to a recognised and distinct breed of dog which is completely different to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, another breed in its own right. For example, under UK legislation (Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, Section II) Pit Bulls or Pit Bull-type dogs are a proscribed breed in the UK. Yet the Act makes makes no mention of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, one of the most popular breeds in the UK, which are owned in their thousands and officially recognised by the UK Kennel Club. Were there any confusion, the UK Government advice to police forces concerning enforcement of the Act, making it clear that Pit Bulls and Staffordshires are quite distinct breeds, can be found here: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/cruelty/documents/ddcircular80.1992.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.217.141 (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Added clarification in the lead section that in the United Kingdom the term "Pit bull" refers only to the American Pit Bull Terrier, with the following reference: [2]. Astro$01 (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Recommend removing National Canine Research Center section

None of the information presented in this section (Pit bull#National Canine Research Council) says anything about pit-bull type dogs. Astro$01 (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Astro$01 (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The NCRC deals extensively with, and dedicates much of the site, to pit bulls and pit bull issues. There is no justification for removing this reference.Benitnov24 (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The text was removed because it has nothing to do with pit bull-type dogs, regardless of any advocacy positions taken by NCRC. Astro$01 (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

NCRC deals extensively with pit bulls and the issues surrounding this type of dog. The entry has now been modified to include a "mention" of pit bulls to accomodate Astro$01 as it seems obvious that Astro$01 is looking for a reason to delete this entry. It would seem obvious to all others that NCRC is a reliable and frequented source of information on pit-bull and dog-related topics.Benitnov24 (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Really, you know what would be obvious to others? I beg to differ. The NCRC is a small time shows that until very recently operated with not a single trained researcher in their employ (I think they are now working with a few vets). Further, the group chose an outsized name for what was at the time of naming a one woman show ala' a former vet tech name Karen Delise. At that time, it was in no way related to any gov't org or real research, yet the name was chosen to conjure something different in the mind of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.19.84.76 (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the section as it does not meet Wikipedias criteria for a reliable source. The NCRC is primarily based on the writings of an individual, and in no cases is any of the material peer reviewed, published externally or subjected to a verification process. The NCRC is predominantly written in first person, and therefore is considered a self-published source WP:SPS. This material would be acceptable if it can be demonstrated that the author is an established expert on the topic, but as it stands the NCRC website does not indicate this (ie qualifications, academic publications etc). In addition, Karen Delise does not appear to be a leading authority on fatal dog attacks as the majority of search results are connected to blogs (generally unsuitable for wikipedia inclusion) and are not academic or veterinary publications. Astro$01 (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The NCRC Board of Advisors are some of the leading canine experts in the US and Canada. One does not have to be a "leading authority" on the subject to meet Wikipedia criteria (hence the inclusion of Merritt Clifton who has NO credentials whatsoever to qualify him to study "dog attacks.") The opinion of Astro$01 that Karen Delise and the NCRC is not "an established expert" seems to conflict with the opinions Toldeo vs. Tellings, Dias vs. Denver, Cochrane vs. Ontario, and other courts of law that have accepted her expert testimony. Benitnov24 (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

How does one ascertain that a court "accepted" an expert's testimony? Is it the mere fact that they were allowed to be called to the stand or is it that the case ultimately went to the side of the argument that said "expert" was called forth to help? Karen Delise was a vet tech, which requires a 2 year associates degree. She quit being a vet tech and then started a group called the National Canine Research Council. At that time, it was just her in a room with a computer and internet: one person with no research skills but a fancy sounding org with no ties to what they were suggesting by its name. During that time, while it was a single person, folks claimed the same of the orgs output. This was mainly done by pit bull afficionados because Karen Delise spent much of her time on that issue. Now, her org was bought up an advocacy org and a few folks have been added to a board of directors. NCRC is a joke. Read the public record on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.19.84.76 (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed. NCRC fails per criteria above. You will need to provide evidence of reliability, such as references to other WP:RS sources, before it can be restored. Mere assertions on your part are not evidence. The burden of proof is on you to prove reliability. Astro$01 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct, mere assertions on your part are not evidence to remove an established reference.Benitnov24 (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Noted vandalism by Astro$01 in removing established reference Benitnov24 (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't characterize content dispute as vandalism. It won't help your case.--Dodo bird (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty laughable considering your position on the Clifton report.--Dodo bird (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we all keep cool please? There is no need for accusations, and please all assume good faith.

Several things stand out to me:

We do need evidence to include material, and if the evidence is insufficient we can't include it. Are the books by Karen Delise authoritative, academic texts, or journalistic in tone? Having looked at The Pit Bull Placebo I'd say the latter: it is a compendium of press reports and opinion – much of the opinion is good common sense, but there is no academic analysis nor objective data. Her use as an expert witness is not necessarily enough (such witnesses can be very dodgy: I've done it myself... It might be for example that a legal team could not find any good authoritative witness and so used a poor one in desperation). What are her qualifications?
Exactly the same principles apply to the Clifton and Canadian Veterinary Journal sections. My feeling is that the former source includes good data and what appears to be dispassionate analysis; the latter appears academic and authoritative.
Might it be better to tag sections and discuss before deleting? Can I suggest that we leave the sections in place until we have come to a consensus here?
Much of the material in these sections is worded in a rather unencyclopaedic way. They tend to report the person and their findings, with long quotes joined together with what amounts to OR: we really ought to be reporting facts and using the person as a ref, or reporting the salient parts of a controversy; quotes are only necessary where the exact words are important. Do we need nearly so much detail here?
The whole article could do with a wider world view: there's a very strong North American bias.

My feeling is that the human fatalities section needs a thorough rewrite – in fact I had already considered tagging it for clean-up. It might be an idea to recruit someone to do this who does not hold strong views either way (and no, I'm not volunteering). Richard New Forest (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note: Clifton's data is collected by Clifton, "analyzed" by Clifton and published in Clifton's own magazine (Animal People, co-owned with his wife Kim Barlett). Clifton readily acknowledges this and this information can be found in any of his publications. Mr. Clifton has no qualifications whatsoever (he is an editor by trade) that allows him draw the conclusions he does from his data. A reading of his entire "study" reveals a very "passionate" diatribe against certain breeds of dogs. To my knowledge Mr. Clifton has no peer reviewed publications, has never been cited in any peer reviewed publications, nor has he been considered as an expert by anyone other than other media sources (and Wikipedia).

If you look at Karen Delise's bio at the end of her book you will see she is a New York State licensed veterinary technican, and has worked in numerous animal related fields. She is director of research for the NCRC. In addition to the (dodgy?)court appointed expert testimony in over 10 cases of fatal dog attacks and litigation involving pit bulls, Delise's work is cited in the many peer reviewed publications, including but not limited to: Dog-Bite-Related Fatalities: American Journal Forensic Med Path, Shields, Lisa MD, Sept. 2009 Vol. 30, No.3 Zoonosis Update: Animal Bites, JAMVA, (Vet Med Today) Patronek, G, VMD, PhD, Feb. 2009, Vol 234 Perceptions of Pit Bull Care after 3 fatal attacks: Bahamas Journal of Science, Burrows, T, Fielding W., Nov. 2004, Vol. 12 Pit bull Mauling Deaths in Detroit, American Journal Forensic Med Path, Loewe, C, MD, Dec. 2007 Vol.28.Benitnov24 (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it turns out the editor who made these comments was just a sock puppet. See User:Benitnov24. Edits reverted. Astro$01 (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not the editor who made these comments is a sock puppet seems irrelevant, his arguments seem valid. Do you have any counterarguments as it seems Karen Delise's work is cited in peer reviewed publications, which would meet Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. BedHedNed (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Karen Delise is an established expert on the topic of pit bulls. There hasn't been any response to BedHedNed's argument. Astro$01's "sock puppet" response is just shooting the messenger. Does anyone still think Karen Delise is not a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dognerd (talk • contribs) 15:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Karen Delise is a hack who spins misleading, illogical arguments. Her book, the pit bull placebo and her other studies, are a litany of logical fallacies. It is very hard to see this,though, when you are sympathetic to what she is trying to accomplish (which is reform the pit bull's reputation). Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I just read this whole thing. The Astro Guy got owned, that was great, and WvGuy owned himself, as he does not appear to understand the concept of peer reviewed. I have no opinion on Pit Bulls, but based on the conversation here, I would say the NCRC is a credible source, only because its main creator is a peer reviewed scholar and has served as an expert witness. Claims that expert witnesses can be dodgy is clearly a rare exception and clutching at straws. I would however, point out in the article that NCRC is largely an advocacy group with a purposefully misleading name designed to heighten their credibility. P.S. What the hell is a sock puppet? If it is a partisan masquerading as an objective force, then not only is benitov one, then so are astro and wvguy, and they all sound like super fun, super objective people acting in the very, very best of faith. Grrbrown (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Dangerously misleading

I find this artical dangerously misleading. the Staffordshire bull terrier is an English breed of dog that is accepted by The Kennel Club of United Kingdom, in it's own right .http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/87 the American breed of pit bull terrier is a completley diffrent breed of dog

There is no such thing as a pit bull type, either a dog is a bit bull or it isn't a pit bull. A Staffordshire bull terrier is not a pit bull, if it was then it would be called a staffordshire pitbull terrier I think you there need to be some some more work to this artical as it is so misleading to the public. I feel that The Staffordshire bull terrier should be removed from this pit bull artical as this breed is not and has never been a pit bull

Adrian harrison --Adrian harrison (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text hereInsert non-formatted text here</nowiki></nowiki></nowiki>

Added clarification in the lead section that in the United Kingdom the term "Pit bull" refers only to the American Pit Bull Terrier, with the following reference: [3]. Astro$01 (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Pit bull" is an informal term used in some countries (including the US) to describe a number of dogs; this is well-documented in the article. The clarification that Astro$01 added makes the distinction that the term typically only applies to one breed in the UK. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The same dog can be registered with the AKC as an American Staffordshire Terrier and with the UKC as an American Pit Bull Terrier. This often occurs. There is no difference in these dogs. The AKC changed the name to remove the word pit and bull which have negative connotations. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

~~I own two pit bulls and work at a Humane Society that has a majority of pit bulls. Pit bulls and Staffies are basically the same thing and it is almost impossible to find a "pure" pit or staffie in England or the US. The "pit bull" is actually a breed that is made up of a number of "bully breeds" including the staffie and the bull terrier along with the american bulldog. Additionally, in bite reports from the past couple of years, pit bulls didn't even enter into the top ten. So before you go making an article horribly one-sided and inaccurate, perhaps you should look up the facts on a more reliable site. Pit bulls/staffies are loving, affectionate, loyal, and well-tempered dogs that deserve more than the nonsense in this article.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.87.214 (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

~~I own a pure bred staff (confirmed and registered with thekeneel club) just because people have muddied the gene pool does not mean they are in anyway related to pitbulls beyond cross breeding. When stood next to a pitbull she looks nothing a like in size and shape. Just because theres a cockapoo doesnt mean that cocker spaniels and poodles are the same breed of dog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyface (talk • contribs) 13:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

~~This article claims that it is "impossible to determine the breed of a dog by DNA". Speaking as a geneticist this statement is just plain wrong. We can get better than 99% accuracy in determining the breed of a dog genetically. The link used as a reference for the "impossible" statement does not even mention DNA testing anywhere in it. This article has some serious problems and miconceptions that must be addressed.robbie smith (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As robbie smith doesn't currently own a Wikipedia account and REAL GENETICS proves his statement false, I'll disagree. To determine distance between wolf and a dog breed isn't that difficult. Determining breed specifics between DOG BREEDS is beyond science today. Perhaps in a few decades, but not today. Every kennel club in the world WISHES it were true, but it is beyond our current science.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization of dog breed

User:The Blade of the Northern Lights changed the capitalization of dog breeds to lower case (twice after I reverted once). In fact, dog breeds (if recognized by an official association) are generally written with first letters capitalized everywhere else in Wikipedia, as can be verified in category:Dog breeds and in Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs where all the breeds are capitalzed in every word. Also, Wikipedia:manual of style states:

For particular groups of organisms, there are particular rules of capitalization based on current and historic usage among those who study the organisms; for example, official common names of birds.

I suggest that the official dog brees in this article be capitalized in the way that the corresponding article titles are. See the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna) about this subject and go from there. Andreas ^(T) 13:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on this: formal breed names of all domesticated animals are normally capitalised, but more general types are not. In this case "pit bull" is a type, so should not be, but the other breed names mentioned should be. I can't find any discussion or consensus on this though: could you point me to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna)? I can find no mention of breeds there. (See also my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force#Capitalisation of breed names, and my and User:The Blade of the Northern Lights's comments at Talk:Cardigan Welsh Corgi#Decapitalization). Richard New Forest (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna) only discusses birds, an equivalent case discussed with similar arguments which are relevant here. Note also that User:The Blade of the Northern Lights has decapitalized many other dog articles. We really need a consensus here. Andreas ^(T) 22:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

pit bulls are very loyal and kind animals when you be kind to them, give them lots of love and make sure they are trained, don't aggravate them or torture them many people torture pitbulls which is not right if you do torture them think would you like it if it happend to you, would it be a good experience for you what do you do it for entertainment think what the poor animal is going through, they have lots of strengh they can even push a car ( if fed properly and trained well) people think of pitbulls as dangerous which they are if not trained, but they are not kept in the pd because they are soft hearted and caring they love their owners and hurt anyone who tries to hurt them always keep them on a small leash so that they don't attack anyone and love them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.105.85 (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Numeric line format one, I agree, but that is NOT a valid reason to flood the page to, potentially, remove the view of non-compliant views of your own form. Indeed, the page is ONLY for the discussion for IMPROVEMENT of the article. NOT breed specific, which is NOT scientifically defined, opinions. THIS from a pit bull owner who would happily raise arms to defend said dog, who would do nothing much against a human against either of us. YOU offer OPINION, not citations or other known facts. To be honest, though it'll not contribute to the article at all, a pit bull is a human centric animal, in general. It WANTS human acceptance and praise. Beyond that, it's nose is rubbish in scent terms. It's intelligence is approximately that of a door stop, though I dearly love those that I've owned or known. It's stamina for the chase, rubbish, it was designed as a fighting dog and family dog. As near as I can tell, the laws regard any animal with an approximate size and head shape as a pit bull. Said laws were, overall, set aside, as vague, by the various courts. What is NOT mentioned, again, outside of the article as your rant, is the lack, in EVERY documented case I've viewed, of TRAINING, SENSITIZATION AND REINFORCEMENT of the owners of the dogs that killed or harmed. Other than that, breed specific legislation, turned to electricity, would leave us in the dark and without commerce AND relying upon candles.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Pit Bull → Pit bull — Pit bull is not an official dog breed (it is a dog type) and therefore shuld not be capitalized. Andreas ^(T) 13:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Note the previous discussion above. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Support as per my comment above. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Sorry if I seemed non-communicative, but I've had some real-life time constraints; getting ready to apply to grad school is a pain. Anyways, yes, it makes sense to move it; Richard New Forest put it best. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Agree with Andreas's reasoning. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Support per Andrea's rationale. Pit bull refers to several dogs in the Molosser group and not to a particular dog breed.—Sandahl (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Support per Andrea's rationale. Astro$01 (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Support per Andrea's rationale. Coaster1983 (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suipport, and it shouldn't even be capitalized if it were a breed rather than a type. Yes, I know that dog publications capitalize breeds, but this is not a dog publication and the capitalization is grossly inappropriate here (except where a proper name is involved, e.g. the "Jack Russell" in "Jack Russell terrier"). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This topic is being discussed above under #Capitalization of dog breed. Andreas ^(T) 18:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"pit bull" was lowercased because it's not a breed name. But nobody undid the lowercasing of breed names on the article text. I have done that now. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(--)

Ok this article only is putting out an opinion of the Pitbull. It does not go deep into talking about they're history, health care, or anything. It mainly focuses on how they are aggressive and just plain mean, and yes some are mean and bad tempered and that is ONLY because of how they were are treated or raised. I have a Pitbull and he is nothing like the Pitbulls described in this article. For instance me and my husband rescued a Pitbull one day because we found out the owners we're using it as a bait dog, meaning they would fight him. He was also aggressive towards cats and other dogs. My pitbull, which i have raised is nothing like that. Now for the dog we rescued we gave him to a new home where they had no other animals and would love him unconditionally —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsdiscuss (talk • contribs) 02:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that common mention of pit bull aggression in major media sources is good enough to cite here. Some people had good experiences with that type of dog, some have not. What's important is the expert opinion on the subject and the information about whats being said in reputable news sources. 69.246.27.226 (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Species?

Is it a bull or a terrier? I believe "Pit bull" is 1abbr of "Pit bull terrier" or some such. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The species of all dogs is the same, Canis lupus familiaris Anonopotamous 18:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desildorf (talk • contribs)

Recommend removing Clifton Report

The Clifton report does not meet WP:NOR.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24436191/Dog-attack-deaths-and-maimings-U-S-Canada-September-1982-to-December-22-2009

Anyone can put up a document on scribd.com like this. This document is self published by an author who does not appear to be an expert in the field.

There is no evidence to suggest that:

the author is an expert on pit bulls
the author any related qualifications
the author has had any related work published in reliable third-party publications (his own newsletter, Animal People, does not qualify in this respect)

I recommend removing reference to this documentDognerd (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an uninformed comment. Please refer to the Wikipedia page on Animal People. This user is recommending a form of censorship. Woodlandpath (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Recommend restoring Famous Pit Bulls section

I can't find any discussion here about removing the Famous Pit Bulls section. I thought it was interesting and relevant.

Reading through the history shows this section was present between 2005 and 2009 and a lot of work has been done on it. Why was it removed? I propose restoring it.Dognerd (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

These sorts of lists are fine as long as they are listed in prose, a bullet pointed list is deemed to be a list of trivia, which is frowned upon on Wiki. Miyagawa (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the advice from more experienced wikipedians. :-) Dognerd (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Terrible

I read dozens of wiki pages on an average day. This article is terrible. I read through this discussion and started on one of the archives. Can someone just delete this whole article and start from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantion (talk • contribs) 04:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Mantion, provide greater detail. What exactly is wrong with the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Reading between the lines, it was probably a normal article till it was maimed by anti-pit and pro-pit forces alike, each awkwardly replacing all information contrary of their views with a string of terrible paragraphs that summed whatever sources they had on hand. I mean, this is but one of many examples I can find.... --^{[ باد است هرآنچه گفته‌اند اى ساقى ]}stellamaris 06:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.Woodlandpath (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously. I am most decidedly pro-pit, but swinging the article from one biased extreme to the other is not helping. Keytud (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguous

"A Pit bull is any of several breeds of dog in the molosser breed group"

Any of several breeds is ambiguous. Name them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.131.8.131 (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

They are named. The term and its applications can be ambiguous, however, so the article reflects that. Anna ^talk 03:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

double standard

It seems the Canadian Veterinary Journal is a good source because it's dog bite related fatality % for pit bulls is much lower than any similar study conducted here in the US.

This is why no one should take this breed community seriously. All other breed communities admit to the faults in their breed for the sake of the public and the dogs. A disgrace, as usual.

deaths by dog maulings

I am a person that has spent most of his life in the country,And here you learn the behaviour of dogs(no matter the breeding)we notice that dogs love to eat human feaces (if you not cover or bury)and roll in it as with other animal waste,So my question is how many of these young children that have been attacked by dogs have had dirty nappies on ,Even on a trip to the city one day in the carpark was a dirty nappy discarded and our dog went straight to it and ripped it to shred to eat the contents so maybe its not the dogs fault is just instinc,dont get me wrong i do feel sorry for the families of loved ones lost.Allan ^^^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koraldambi (talk • contribs) 01:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, pit bulls attacking infants is all about their insatiable desire to eat poop. Nice. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Disputed section

The Public Perception section consists of a single sentence, yet it carries a Disputed banner. This shows that something is wrong with the section, and probably the entire article.

It seems the section was added solely to link to an article with an advocacy viewpoint. I suggest removal. Woodlandpath (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd also vote to remove the reference about the St. Francis program being pulled because of dogs killing cats. I've read another article (which I can't link because it is stuck in whitelist hell) on examiner.com that describes the program was essentially sabotaged by the SF Animal Control. The whole cat killing spree has no actual reference to an actual news story anywhere. 204.14.239.209 (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Remove entire article

The entire article should be removed and rewritten. It appears that the author of this article is extremely biased. They do not discuss the many studies that refute the idea that pit bulls bite more. In fact, recent studies show that the most dog bites come from Golden Retrievers! It also does not describe the wonderful temperament of "pit bulls". They are one of the highest scorers on the standard temperament test!! I would rewrite this entire article, but I really believe that the whole thing should be removed before it is rewritten. Honestly, I find this article highly offensive and misleading. I have to learn how to flag an article as offensive. I have a MS, MSW and MA in Animal Behavior, I am a certified animal behavior consultant, a dog trainer and I own a dog daycare. And I am telling you that the entire article on "Pit Bulls" is VERY BIASED, INCOMPLETE, AND OFFENSIVE!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.86.87 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The person above seems wondrously unbiased. They should be allowed to write this wiki page on their own and perhaps even rewrite the entire history of the dog breed to their liking. I'm all for it. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The person above is utilizing the argument from authority fallacy. Also, this person and most editors here do not realize that the temperament comparisons among breeds using the ATTS and other tests are spurious because of something called self-selection bias. The study the shows small dogs biting more was based upon an online questionnaire that did not make any effort at an adequate sampling design, could be taken multiple times, and could be lied on. Further, generic bites are not of nearly the concern as life-altering and life-ending attacks. This breed is so touchy that people who own it have generally lost their minds in its defense.

I do agree that pits I have encountered (including mine) are very nice and trainable, but this is an encyclopedic entry. If you want something changed I suggest you start providing sources instead of being offended. For instance, the study showing Golden Retrievers biting the most, the scores pertaining to temperament, and the articles that refute the idea that pits bite more. When considering the majority of literature concerning pits, this article does not come off as terrible biased. Keytud (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

For the opening: It would also be important and nice to include - on all dog pages - the results of the Temperment test which are available electronically. Some breeds are not as reliable due to the amount of dogs tested, but many breeds have a large sample size and this sort of information would be great to include at the beginning of all dog entries. Comments on breed standard for AKC, UKC, CKC, etc, health and temperament results and so on. A nice neutral opening. For the bite statistics section: I think it's important to include the fact that the CDC has come out and said that attempting to dissect what breed of dog bites whom is no longer acceptable. I believe they are no longer looking at which breed bites, and simply collecting statistics on how many people are bitten each year. They have said that attempting to classify bites and breeds is a mistake. You can actually obtain the dog bite stats for Denver as well as Miami-Dade county and see that their dog bites are actually up. And now, in Denver, the breed leading the pack of dog biters is the Golden Retriever. The problem is, 90% of the people in the country don't own pure bred dogs anymore. We all have mutts. So to call a dog a pitbull (which isn't even a breed of dog, as previously mentioned) is not factual and IS biased. If you were kicked by a mule - would you tell someone it was the donkey or the horse that did it? The same occurs with the pitbull type dogs (which actually encompasses 23 possible breeds, which I did NOT see listed here). So if you are bitten by a lab-American Pitbull Terrier, was it the lab that bit you or the APBT? These sorts of fallicies are pervasive in the community - and yes there is extensive media bias. Just a month ago a woman was attacked by "Vicious Dogs" where her son had to fend off the dogs with his skateboard. You had to read 3/4 of the way through the article to find the breed. However, when a woman was mauled by a 'pitbull' it was in the title (where again, pitbull isn't even a breed of a dog!) and mentioned throughout. It's going to be hard to keep this one neutral - so why not take that challenge head on and address the controversies directly - instead of trying to hide behind the giant pink elephant in the room? BUT, with that being said, with the stats from the CDC, the local areas who have enacted BSL, the reforms in Canada where they got rid of BSL and instead enacted strong Dangerous Dog laws (regardless of breed!) and with the sheer numbers of 23 breeds of dogs out there that live peacefully with their owners, neighbors and friends, statistics are on the side of this breed. It's just important to address that any dog, regardless of breed, can and do bite people. Gatonegro85 (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I will only address the point related to temperament testing. The American Temperament Testing Society's (ATTS) breed summaries, which I assume you would reference, have been contested regarding their appropriate use in a wiki page. Mention of the ATTS was removed from the American Staffordshire Terrier page. If you read the discussion for that page it might help in decisions regarding it for this page. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Amen... A "Pit Bull" is not a recognized breed, but describes a group of canines and crossbred canines that have similar appearances. This article is only needed to define a "slang" term and at the most should only reference other pages that pertain to actual recognized breeds. 67.77.84.157 (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

CDC Section Should be removed or at least rewitten.

After reading the actual CDC report, it is obvious that the original author of this chapter was anti “Pit Bull” and that further edits by both anti and pro “Pit Bull” individuals have just made the chapter worse. Furthermore, the chapter does not accurately summarize the CDC report. Quoted paragraphs of the CDC report are taken out of context and appear to be used to suggest the poster’s point of view rather that the CDC intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.84.157 (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism, but can't find it to edit

There is profanity on the first line of History section. Was not on edit page.

The lead picture looks disingenuous

I've never seen a pit bull that thin and small. I believe we should replace it with one that's representative of the breed, such as these: http://www.oldfamilypitbulls.com/images/Moe.jpg http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images24/AmericanPitBullTerrierPrettyBoySwagRedBoy.jpg Dogweather (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Those are not Pit Bulls, they're Staffordshire terriers. Specifically, the one with the blue ribbon is a Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the one with the red and blue ribbon is an American Staffordshire Terrier. The lead picture is a pure-bread Pit Bull. They are always fairly slender and lean with a smooth head. If the top of the head has an M shape with the huge dent in the middle, it is either a Staffy or an interbreeding of Staffies or Staffies and Pit Bulls. I know, I've rescued all three breeds my entire life from ignorant rednecks trying to "keep the fighting spirit alive" in them. --Sardonicus (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to show examples of show-quality Pit Bull Terriers as opposed to the picture currently being used. There are a number of high-quality bloodlines from American kennels which are being bred as show dogs and I am sure at least one of those kennels would happily contribute a picture. Triple D Kennels in the US breed excellent quality Blue American Pit Bull Terriers, although for this article I should think a Rednosed Pitbull would be the best choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.90.220.175 (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Popularity

I think there should be a section in this article to document the apparent increase in popularity of pit bulls since the 1980s/1990s, and documented (sourced) speculation about why this has happened, especially despite declining rates of human crime. Are pit bull enthusiasts the product of cultural lag? (mistakingly assuming that risks for crime are getting worse and worse when in fact the opposite has occured; also perhaps the possibility that massive increased ownership of fighting dog breeds has contributed to this drop in crime rates should be considered---it would be even more ironic if burglary rates have actually increased in areas where pitbull ownership is common while dramatically decreasing where there are no pitbulls). 173.28.244.122 (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's just a dumb trend now partially propped up by rescue angels who think every breed is the same and special, and they desperately want middle america to embrace this breed so that they will not be the number 1 breed killed in shelters by a huge margin. The suspicion is that the increased popularity around 1980 is because in the 1970s dog fighting took on federal legal consequences and so some states were no longer a safe haven for dog fighters due to lax laws. At that time, people who previously breed for the fighting ring began selling their creation at large to recoup lost income. But what would I know? You should probably listen to the chick at the local pound with the nose ring and a limited vocabulary. Wvguy8258 (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

File:AmericanPitBullTerrier.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:AmericanPitBullTerrier.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:AmericanPitBullTerrier.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Intro Line

A pit bull is any of several breeds of dog, and the only natural predator of the human baby. What?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.122.174 (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, open wikis such as Wikipedia is prone to vandalism. If you see vandalism, you can usually remove it yourself even if you are not logged in. If the page is locked for anonymous users, report vandalism at the talk page. Thank you 76.108.122.174 for reporting and 68.51.94.67 for removing the vandalism. Andreas ^(T) 15:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Desperately Needs Re-Writing

So I read it and read the talk page and this is way below Wikipedia standards and some of the suggestions are completely idiotic.

What to Actually Put on the Page

First and foremost, when a term is used for something which is very specific, but then also is used colloquially for other things that have their own specific name, what usually happens is any search takes you to the page of that which is specifically and only called what it is. Then there will be a text at the top in italics that says "This page is about the ______, for other uses please see the disambiguation page".

There is a specifically recognised breed of dog in both the United States and the UK, which is the same breed, called the Pit Bull and is distinctly a separate breed from the American Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Also, there is enough information on all three breeds and enough of a difference between them (though they all can be interbred with viable offspring) that substantial articles could be made for each one. No other breed commonly referred to as a "Pit Bull" or "Pitbull" should be on here - it should go on the disambiguation page.

Extremely Obvious Inconsistency

The very first line of the introductory paragraph states "a pit bull is a breed with a similar history, with origins rooted from the American Staffordshire and a pit terrier". The next section immediately following it, History, states "Although pit bulls were all created with similar crossbreeding between bulldogs and terriers, each individual breed within the type has a distinct history". Now, if one were to loosely abuse the English language the way it has been for so long (resulting in forte from French origin meaning a person's strong points being pronounced as four-tay when it is actually fort, or irregardless now being considered a word), then one could claim the first says that the origin is similar and the second says the history (from origin) is different. This is bogus; the first sentence I spoke of doesn't even make ANY grammatical sense at all but I assume it is trying to say that Pit Bulls are a breed of dog that share similar history and origins to the American Staffies and the Pit Terriers, which is totally not cited and also wrong; the second sentence I spoke of states the exact opposite in that the way the breed came into existence or originated is similar to how the Staffies came into existence, but the history is totally different, which is way more accurate.

The first paragraph under the heading "American Pit Bull Terrier" is excellent, after that it goes to complete crap. It says in a sentence how the dogs are so well mannered (which they naturally are) and great companions and so on then immediately states in the next sentence that they are the ones most used for illegal activities and fighting. Yet this isn't entirely accurate. The breed Pit Bull is commonly used for fighting, but the appearance that Pit Bulls are used so much is marred by the fact that so many idiots call Staffies "Pit Bulls" and those are used as much. For example, most of Michael Vick's dogs were all some sort of a Staffy and NOT a Pit Bull, yet were referred to constantly as Pit Bulls (I don't think I ever heard anyone call them otherwise). This should be noted in here as the page should be about the specific breed only. Also note, I'm talking about the dogs that belonged to Vick himself, such as Seven (RIP, Staffie) and Jasmine (RIP, Staffie/Pit Bull mix) that were highly famous afterwards (Red, RIP, actually was a pure-bred Pit Bull). My suggestion to this as a total re-write. What should be here is their natural temperament (extremely intelligent, playful, energetic, easy to train, friendly) and that an entirely other section be made to deal with the illegal crap. For example, Pit Bulls used for fighting are in-bred, causing their skulls to shrink in size over generations, but not their brains; this in combination with abuse is what causes them to be ill-mannered and is NOT their natural temperament.

There's a lot more that, I'm just going into, there's too much, just a TOTAL rewrite needs to be done.

Competing Bias and Lack of Flow

It seems almost like two people talking at the same time about totally different things. Every other sentence is biased in favour of Pit Bulls and the others are biased against them. While not all the statements are wrong, they're back to back flopping from one to the other and the wording of them renders them more emotionally and less factually.

Conclusion

Get ONE SINGLE person who is a good authority on the subject who can find reliable and unbiased sources and ONE SINGLE person who is neutral to the page and good at writing fact-based articles to write it out. After that, lock it.

Sardonicus (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that most people who will step forward as dog experts will reflexively defend any dog breed, and also often aren't trained in data analysis and critical thinking. If you find one person, it will likely be a pit bull advocate and this page will be sunshine and rainbows. Wvguy8258 (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence makes no sense

"A pit bull is a breed with a similar history, with origins rooted from the American Staffordshire and a pit terrier." reads the lead sentence. Similar to what? JIMp_talk·cont 05:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I cleaned it up a bit. JoelWhy?(talk) 11:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that Bit Bulls are banded in Florida but you can own a tiger? They shouldnt have to walk around with mussles on their face. They are just like any other dog, but sadly they are breed to fight its in their blood. People are trying to band them in other states and even try to kill them all. Its outragous, Save the pit bulls. Golden

Redirect from "Nanny dog"

There was a recent move to put Nanny dog to the Pit Bull page. I don't think this is well thought out. This is a new invention, without long standing WP:RS and has been convincingly debunked. King, C. (8.04.2010). "The Nanny Dog Myth Revealed The Truth About Pit Bulls". Retrieved October 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) As the website convincingly demonstrates, Pit Bulls are no "nanny dog". 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I have brought up the issue of the redirect at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. More specifically Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nanny dog redirect 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I've now removed the "nanny dog" redirect. I can't find any cite for it that does not ultimately cite a blog or other non-WP:RS for evidence. -- The Anome (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit of Attacks on Humans Section

I came across this page and was startled by how terrible the citations are in the attacks section. It cites studies that used media reports at a time when the breed was frequently discussed in newspapers and magazines, and relies on people's idea of what the biting breed was. The problem with this is that American Pit Bull Terriers often look like many other breeds so the studies are nowhere near scientific. It is pretty clear that the person who wrote this section did not review the data and sought out the worst studies to make the breed look bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.165.191.25 (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The media also has a tendency to use stock photographs of Pit Bull Terriers, Amstaffs and Staffordshire Bull Terriers (but mostly Pit Bulls) when reporting on a dog attack of any nature, carried out by any breed. In some cases I have seen them actually identify the dog as some other breed (IIRC the last one I read in the local newspaper was a Rottweiler) in the news report, but have a shock-horror headline with a big picture of a Pit Bull Terrier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.226.253.29 (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Major Problem with Bini & Cohn Study (source #35)

The "Attacks on Humans" section contains a number of sentences sourced from the study Bini, John K.; Cohn, Stephen M.; Acosta, Shirley M.; McFarland, Marilyn J.; Muir, Mark T.; Michalek, Joel E. (2011). "Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs". Annals of Surgery. This study is problematic for several reasons, both in terms of the study's flawed methodology and its citation of unreliable and biased sources such as dogsbite.org. The Annals of Surgery published a response to the study that raises numerous questions to the reliability of the study which can be seen here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22504199

The authors responded with a follow-up (also published in Annals of Surgery), which address none of the concerns raised:

http://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/Citation/2012/05000/Reply_to_Letter____Imprudent_use_of_Unreliable_Dog.39.aspx

Rather than addressing the points raised, the authors merely claim that they are not veterinarians or animal behaviorists and stand by their data. A summary of the concerns raised for those not behind a paywall to access Annals can be found here:

http://legal.pblnn.com/9-uncategorised/121-why-the-texas-study-on-mortality-mauling-a-maiming-by-vicious-dogs-is-scientifically-unreliable

I think this raises the issue of that there are numerous problems with this article and any data that is cites this source should be removed (currently three references). PearlSt82 (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless it's been retracted, you wouldn't remove the references because of that. But, you could include the concerns about the studies by referencing the response. JoelWhy?(talk)

Ok, I've added a sentence referencing those concerns and cited said reponse. Thanks!PearlSt82 (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Nanny Dog Link

Why has the link to the "Truth about Pit Bulls: The Nanny Dog Myth Revealed" link in the Further Reading section been reinserted after it was removed? Its an extremely biased blog with an obvious agenda that in no way meets the requirements laid out in Wikipedia:Further_reading.PearlSt82 (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed it myself, I didn't notice that it had gotten added back in. It doesn't belong on here, it is a clearly biased link. Neosiber (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.135.160 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

By all means, assert something without evidence and then disallow sources that point out what you had done.

Prejudice info on Pit Bulls

I generally love wikipedia, but while looking up different breeds of dogs, I notice they all have a list containing their appearance or description, temperament, and health. Well, all except one. Under Pit Bulls, we have none of those. Instead, we have attacks, legislation, and restrictions. Pits are highly intelligent, muscular, athletic, affectionate dogs who love to be with their people. They are great with children, gentle, playful, and silly. They will put themselves in harms way to protect the ones they love, with no thought to their own well being. Of course, like ANY breed of dog, this is dependent on them being socialized and trained. I was very disappointed in the prejudice of the information given about them. You are just contributing to the ignorance and fear that surrounds this incredible type of dog. I really wish someone who knew more about them would rewrite this article. I would, but I have never found specific health problems with any of the ones I've owned. Can someone there PLEASE help correct this article?

72.213.135.160 (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Any information that's relevant to the subject can be added to the article, as long as it's properly sourced. Should you fine documented information from reputable sources about pit bull's temperament that contradicts the information in the article, by all means add it in. However, you must do so from a neutral point of view, showing neither bias for or against Pitt Bulls, and retaining the reliably sourced information that might contradict your own suppositions. For example, you may not like that there is legislation against pit bull ownership in some states, but it's a notable and established fact there is. It must be properly covered. Conversely, the information on the legislation should cover both, or other, points of view on the matter, if also properly sourced and relevant to the section. However, anecdotal evidence, or personal feelings on the matter should never be included, and do not result in an encyclopedic entry. Controversy surround pit bulls is irrevocably a part of their history, now. Whether we like it or not. And an encyclopedic article should reflect that. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jedi Master. However, I do feel that the language in "Attacks on Humans" is a bit sensationalist. (I have a solution at the end). The section does not give equal weight to claims about other breeds, or acknowledge the controversy over how many of these statistics can and have been selected for rhetorical purposes in many other articles on the subject. I have no opinion on the breed, but as a holder of a B.A. in English and a freelance journalist, this is pretty clearly what is going on in this section. For example, a better way to begin the section would acknowledge the perception of the breed in the first sentence, then immediately offer an objective comparison to other breeds. Third, should be the CDC's findings showing that rottweilers and pit bulls are responsible for the most bite related injuries/fatalities, but with the important caveat that the researchers explicitly indicate that they believe there is a strong probability that this is so because a), rotts and pits are both popular breeds, b) and probably far more of a factor is the fact that poor people and jerks (they are very different things, not implying anything, haha) tend to buy these breeds more than others, specifically because of their reputation and/or the potential owner's own belief in the breed's reputation. People buy these breeds either for intimidation purposes, home protection, or to illegally fight. Hate to say it, but poor people are also more likely to abuse their pets, or lack the resources to care for them properly. (citation needed I know, maybe common sense?) (would be nice to show how you can turn a lab into a vicious animal). Okay, after all, that, then maybe, maybe,get into specific pit bull statistics. I would avoid this, for the simple reason that who on wikipedia is going to be able to police every little news article or periodic source in this massive country. I would stick to scholarly studies (the more recent the better, and always peer reviewed) like the CDC one I mentioned. The way it's written now reads like a tabloid style police blotter, or a prosecutor's notes. Right, the solution right? The solution, is for all you trusted objective editors (the real ones), to send a letter to the wiki foundation requesting guidance, and help writing the article from experts and professional writers. Until then, I feel it is too nuclear to even include pitbull bite statistics if they are not included for other breeds in context. Of course acknowledge the perception, and cite sources saying people may own them for nefarious purposes, point out who tends to own them, and acknowledge the CDC findings I mentioned CAREFULLY, and provide context. It must be written with GREAT care, with the assistance of not only objective scholars, but a professional journalist or two. I say this because the order the information is presented in and the space each point of information is given is probably as important as the content itself, especially in a controversial article. Reread the section and I'm sure it will become obvious. Again, neutral on pits, just an anal English major who always had to battle his professors just to cite very, very basic non-controversial info! Articles like this are a major point for my professors. Get this right or y'all need to cut it down ruthlessly, it's far too anti-pit bull biased at the moment. I think the editors here have decided to throw up their hands, rather than roll up their sleeves and get this right. It would have been no different if the pro-pit bull forces disproportionately influenced this article. I just think anti-pit bull types got the last word in before the wiki editors figured out what was going on and shut it down. Grrbrown (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't (yet) made significant edits to the article, but have looked at some of the sources. Here is my take. What the original editor is remarking on is a reflection of what the RSs report. And even the studies that are referenced in the article. And, to respond to the most recent post, attacks on humans is something the scientific studies report on, as well of course as the RSs in general. This should not be that difficult to have properly reflect what is in the RSs however. And that is the goal at wp -- balance does not mean all sides have equal weight, but rather that the proportional weight reflected in the RSs is reflected in the article. If there is what an editor thinks, for example, is disproportionate and unfair legislation that relates specifically to pit bulls -- well, if the RSs cover it in proportion to its existence, so do we. I know all three of you do not have as many edits under your belt yet as some editors, but that is a basic tenet at the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

And we especially avoid, further to the point above, revising what a source says by mis-stating it, inserting our own view, as was done here. If, as there, the source speaks specifically to pit bulls, we don't change that to "any dog". The edit summary "more neutral language" is not license to alter the sense of the source, as reflected in the text, to say something different. Because that's not what the source says. And our remit is to reflect the source.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

a request for wikipedia to edit.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To bring interest of owning a pit bull i think it would be fair if you and i said you add a new section, this section should be about how to care for a pitbull what they like to do, what percent of all pitbulls are vicious and most importantly how they are great with children in fact did you know that in the 1700s they were nanny dogs. y 76.215.54.115 (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format.. You need to provide the text you would like inserted into the article, supported by reliable sources RudolfRed (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Finally. This must be the most intelligent voice I have heard in pit bull advocacy. We have met the future.

Ohio Pitbull law

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the "Liability insurance" section this article lists the pitbull as being a dangerous breed in Ohio and stating it requires you to have insurance for the dog. This is outdated information. Ohio has since revised it's laws, unless a city passes the law pitbulls are no longer on the vicious dog list for Ohio. You are no longer required to get special insurance or muzzle your dog in public in Ohio.

http://www.measlesanimalhaven.org/OhioLaws.htm BonerTimeRapeWagon (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Done—Ohio Revised Code was amended May 2012. – 29611670.x (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 April 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am unfamiliar with the mentioned "break stick" method, but I would NOT recommend it. Please add the following information to the section titled "Locking Jaws Myth":

Doing so will harm and anger the dog even more resulting in additional injuries. A simple, safer method to unlocking a dog's jaw would be to elevate the dog's hind legs above its head, which could be done by hooking your forearm around the dog's waist (below the ribs) and pulling up. This throws off its equilibrium, instantly releasing its jaw.

This is a very important tip for all dog owners! Esaintjones (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. But -- please see wp:or.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

43. References to Attacks

I could not find references to any other major breed pages for attacks. Given the contentious nature of the subject, and the much documented back and forth (national canine research council vs dogsbite.org) I wonder why this should be included, unless applicable sections were to be added to other breeds, and accurate documentation of the attacks were to be obtained. I feel the legislation portion is deservedly here, as it deals with laws that are well documented.

Brianmchrist (talk)brianmchristBrianmchrist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

What does other breed pages matter to this page? There is notability regarding attacks by pit bull style dogs, is there not? -Kai445 (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

CHECK YOUR FACTS

As a pit bull owner of 20+ years, mother and grandmother I beg of you, please have someone who doesn't hate the breed reresearch the article. I have been rescuing pits for about 15 years and I have done extensive research on the subject of pit bull attacks and safety around children. If your writers would have done their research they would've foud that 93% of the American public can't identify a pit bull correctly, 25% of people who work with them reglarly can't always tell for sure; so a lot of the witness statemets saying that it was a pit bull attack are statisticly most likely incorrect and if you add the fear and pain to the equasion and the fact that a lot of police and ER staff automatically assume that a seious wound came from a pit, you are dealing with some seriously messed up "statistics". I have also heard directly from law enforcement that any mid to large size dog with a big or boxy head is recorded as a pit. I could on for hours about the media misinformation we are subjected to.

Please, for me and every other responsible pit owner who has dogs that are sweet and loving and loyal, stop making our lives harder! It's bad enough that our kids friend's can't come to the house because of our "killer dogs", the only thig my dog ever killed was a bowl of kibble; or that if we're walking down the road people cross to the other side of the street; or that if I take my dog to the dog park (my pit who takes orders from my 5lb chihuahua) everyone else leaves; but then an "encyclopedia" site that is suppose to present the facts, puts out this heap of misinformation, lies and BS. Don't think I'll be using wikipedia in the future, if there is this much that is wrong on one page, what faith can I have that other pages are more accurate?F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B217:D74F:4951:E104:4502:3818 (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, obviously you don't understand how Wikipedia works when you say 'have someone who doesn't hate the breed research the article'. Wikipedia articles are not 'researched' by individuals who are assigned the task by Wikipedia. You are free to edit the article yourself as long as you can verify the data you are using. You are free to edit out anything you consider to be 'misinformation' as long as you can back up the claim that the sources of this misinformation are unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.31.28.251 (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

US-Centrism of this article

This article is clearly US-centric from the opening paragraph onwards. Epeefleche seems to think a couple of token mentions of other countries towards the end of an article is enough to prevent US-centrism, and keeps removing the tag. Anyone else care to chime in on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.54.39 (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe your statement is a bit hyperbolic, but I agree with the overall sentiment. JoelWhy?(talk) 14:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm always perplexed when an IP editor, with their second edit ever, applies a tag. Mr. IP -- are you by an chance also editing under other names or accounts? Also -- if Mr. IP wishes to add info as to pit bulls in St. James Park in London or elsewhere, he is free to do so (if properly sourced). There is no need to mar an article with a tag at the top.

In addition, two of the three dogs of this type are American, so it stands to reason that everything else being equal there would be a lean that way -- quite properly.

Furthermore, the article discusses England, Scotland, Ireland, and Canada, Old English Terriers, English Bulldogs, White English Terriers, Canadian courts, Canadian studies, the Calgary model, Ontario, Singapore, and Air France. So there certainly is no need for a tag. Plus, from what I've seen, most of the media discussion of the dogs and studies and legislation is from US sources (not surprising, since they are primarily American) .... we don't just make up sources and text to add "balance" when the sources are primarily from one country. And if Mr. IP has sources relating to other countries, let him add them. That's normal editing. No reason for a desultory tag. Mr. IP -- plese see wp:SOFIXIT.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

- I have a cycling IP address and have been happy editing under it in the past. I could register an account if it bothers you that much, but I'm not sockpuppeting. Anyway, I don't see how the tag 'mars' the article or is 'desultory' (perhaps you mean 'disparaging'?) You seem to be taking use of the tag as some kind of personal slight. Isn't it a tool to help an article be found by non-US editors who have the knowledge to improve matters? I may edit it in the future but don't have as much knowledge as others might, and as I said, the purpose of the tag is to allow them to find areas where improvement is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.54.39 (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi IP. There are a number of benefits that you will be able to avail yourself of if you register -- have you ever edited under a registered name? I'm glad to hear that you are not socking. I had three different socks on the other side of discussion just this past six weeks. That such tags mar the article and are desultory (i.e., lacking purpose; and yes, disparaging as well) is I believe commonly understood. It's not as though you simple make a talkpage comment ... you insert it at the top of the article itself. The first thing all readers read. I think that should only be done, therefore, when it is not controversial that the tag is appropriate. Here, for the reasons I've pointed out, it is quite controversial.

Furthermore, some topics just don't span the whole world, or don't span it with the same weight in all corners of the globe -- as demonstrated above, such is the case here. Two of the three dogs are American.

This article is not a case where a global issue has been focused entirely on one small corner of the globe, to the exclusion of other parts of the world where the topic also applies -- and that would be the case where this tag would be appropriate. And in such a case, you ought to leave on the talk page a list of places you think the topic might also apply. But as demonstrated above, the article already has many references to other countries outside the US. From my research, I think it reflects the sources fairly well, but if you have, say, info on studies in Antartica, or legislation in Ghana, please let me know where I can find it.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Lede

There is a paragraph in the lede that talks exclusively about the origins of the American Pit Bull Terrier. This particular dog is not the sole subject of this article and devoting a paragraph to its origins -- without any similar information about other pit bull type dogs or other explanation -- is quite confusing. I've been watching this article for a while but only just today noticed that this situation has crept in. Would anyone object to just removing that paragraph? If someone wants to write a less breed-specific paragraph instead then that would be even better. (It's my recollection that we decided some time ago that this page would be an article on the broader category of pit bull type dogs and not about the American Pit Bull whose page is elsewhere.) Peace, Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Reference to APDT was removed but reverted back to scientific information from peer review journals about the difficulty determining what is a pit bull, since several different breeds are included in the definition. Also included scientific information about BSL, which refers to general pit bull ownership. Removal of uncited, unproved statements about insurance and fighting. Those are discussed in legal section as well as the article on dog aggression and dog fighting and are redundant in lede since they are discussed in many other places.

the statement about the difficulty determining which dog can be identified as a pit bull was not colloquial or informal, it was actually explicitly stated in one of the scientific articles that it can be difficult to determine what constitutes a pit bull based on appearance alone. I believe that paragraph should be put back in, but perhaps reworded to sound less informal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.197.23 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Before we do that we would have to agree on what to say. And it seems presumptuous to say that it's difficult to classify a dog as a pit bull when in fact the term is entirely subjective to begin with. Better IMO to not go there; instead make a neutral-sounding statement that dogs with the characteristic square-shaped head are often classified^{[according to whom?]} as pit bulls regardless of their actual lineage. Dusty|💬|You can help! 19:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The national canine research council is a peer reviewed scientific journal and they have published an article by Virginia Voith called "Inaccuracy of Breed Labels Assigned to Dogs of Unknown Origin" which explicitly says that it is difficult to classify a dog as pitbull. http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/breed-identification-1/

I do understand what you're saying and I appreciate that you are trying to keep it as objective as possible, i'm just saying that this is a statement by a scientist that has been cited. If you would feel more comfortable, I can provide other journal articles that say the same. I am just trying to provide scientific statements, my intention is not to offend or to be subjective, I'm just trying to provide the facts that are out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.197.23 (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok it is about being objective but I have other concerns, too. First, the link you provided doesn't really mention pit bulls; it

compared the breed identifications assigned by adoption agencies to dogs of unknown parentage with DNA breed analysis of the same dogs. They found low agreement between the two.

What is more, since "pit bull" is not actually a breed as much as it is a general type of dog I am not sure that "breed identification" even applies. Second, we are editing the lede. This section of the article should act as an introduction to the topic and a summary of the article; anything in the lede should be at minimum repeated but preferably expanded upon in the article. We don't currently have a section on classifying dogs as pit bulls and I personally feel that adding a section (even if it's just a small paragraph in the history section) should have priority over putting this in the lede. But of course we need a source and I didn't see anything about pit bulls in the link.

What I did find is this quote:

In 1966, Peter L. Burger and Thomas Luckmann, published THE SOCIAL CON- STRUCTION OF REALITY. They defined a social construct as the perception of an individual, a group, or an idea that is 'constructed' through cultural or social practice. It is a phenomenon 'invented' or 'constructed' by the people who participate in it, which can be said to exist because they agree to behave as if it does: as though it had been there all the time.
Pit bull is not a breed. You will not find pit bull in the breed list of either the American Kennel Club, the United Kennel Club; or in the Wisdom Panel breed library. Yet there is a definite public idea of what is meant by “pit bull.” That public idea was constructed through the process that Burger and Luckmann described.

But I don't know if this will really help us except as a reference saying that pit bulls are not a breed but a (subjective) category of dog.

Anyway this reply is way longer than I had intended so I am going to let you take a turn now ;-) Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Other Studies section

This edit by 174.50.163.187 removes a significant amount of text and cites just the abstract. Can anyone with the ability to access the full article gauge whether or not the wording in the first revision is more appropriate, as it cites more info?PearlSt82 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I reinserted the text, the current wording is also not verbatim from the abstract like the other one was.PearlSt82 (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hearing Loss In Pit Bulls

Should this article include a section about the propensity for partial or complete deafness in certain breeds of pit bull, and a discussion of special care needed (such as the owner of a hearing-impaired dog learning to use rudimentary sign language and nonverbal commands)? --The_Iconoclast (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

bull terriers are not pit bulls

Both Bull terriers and pit bulls such as Daddy (dog) share a common ancestor, the original Bull and Terrier, which was a cross from the molosser branch and the small terrier branch. See here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/fig_tab/nature08837_F1.html#figure-title

However, since then, the bull terrier branch has split off. It arose through the injection of bloodlines of a wide variety of dogs with long skulls. All bull terriers have this same mixed ancestry absent in dogs such as Pete the Pup and Daddy (dog) and untold numbers of other dogs we can see every day, who are not bull terriers. They are pit bulls.

There are two branches that have split off since the union of bulldog and terrier. One branch separated into when it was injected with borzoi and foxhounds many more bloodlines from totally separate branches of the dog family tree and the result back-fed until it bred true. This is known. This branch is the Bull terriers: the original bull terrier and the miniature bull terrier represent the two sub-branching of this branch, filled as was fed DNA from other branches of the dog family tree. All animals of this branch are properly called “Bull Terriers”, not “pit bulls”.

None of this blood is in the other branch, the one to which Pete the Pup and Daddy (dog) and so many other dogs belong. These dogs are free from any such injection of external DNA and remain purely descended from the Bull and Terrier branch with no injections of far-flung DNA external to the pit bull branch. This line further split into different pit bull breeds and mixes and others all of which are indisputably pure pit bull in a way that bull terriers simply are not. Bull terriers have an ancestor which was a pit bull but they have many other ancestors also and so are not pure pit bulls.

It is not only incorrect to say that bull terriers are pit bulls because they are a separate bloodline. It is also incorrect to say that they are morphologically pit bulls. Let me explain. You see it’s possible to be a pit bull without sharing the ancestry with today’s pit bulls. If pit bulls where created from breeding small terriers with bulldogs in histry, one could do repeat the process and do that again. So even if every pit bull on the planet suddenly disappeared, they could be re-created by crossing small terriers with bulldogs again. If it was done once it could be done again, and the result would be an animal which was morphologically a pit bull but not descended from the branch as pit bull branch on the dog family tree. But bull terriers are not pit bulls in this morphological sense either. Physically, bull terriers are very different, especially their skulls. Bull terriers are not morphological pit bulls, either.

Chrisrus (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Poor Source

Citation 28 - http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/04/1/editorialHighRiskDogs1.04.html - seems highly suspect. It's not a site from a newspaper or highly regarded organization, and doesn't cite any sources or link to any other articles besides others on its own site. A different source needs to be found for that fact or deleted. Flickeringice (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources in the lede of miscategorization of pitbulls by visual appearances

The sentence "Any mixed breed dog may be labelled a "pitbull" if they have the characteristic square shaped head, however such broad classification is strongly criticized by advocates." has been reverted to "Any mixed breed dog may be labelled a "pitbull" if they have the characteristic square shaped head." twice now by User:Kai445. Three sources are cited for this sentence:

"Irrationality Unleashed: The Pitfalls of Breed-Specific Legislation".

of which Part II is an entire discussion of how mixed breed dogs get erroneously labelled as a "pit bull"

the second source of "Inaccuracy of Breed Labels Assigned to Dogs of Unknown Origin" states:

"In a second paper published in 2013, Dr. Voith and her colleagues surveyed more than 900 people in dog-related professions and services and showed that respondents frequently disagreed with each other when making visual breed identifications of the same dog, and that their opinions may or may not have correlated with DNA breed analysis."

The third source doesn't really apply to this sentence, and I'm not really sure how it found its way in here (but I don't have access to the paywall).

In either case, both the first two sources do not advocate visual identification of dog breeds, and it is a complete misrepresentation of the sources to remove the fact that they are critical of visual id just based on the fact that ii has a "characteristic square shape head". Visual identification of dogs is not accepted best practice in the scientific and veternary community, and both of these sources argue against it. The wording of "Any mixed breed dog may be labelled a "pitbull" if they have the characteristic square shaped head" strongly implies that not only do these sources suggest its an acceptable practice, but that is common place within the community. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"By advocates." Advocates of what? You also keep undoing my reversion of the ESL-level "can also classified", which makes me wonder how closely you looked at my reversions. -Kai445 (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Would "scholars and professionals" be a better phrase rather than advocates? "Inaccuracy of Breed Labels..." goes on to say "An article by two veterinarians and an attorney published in November 2012 in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) has considered the implications of these undisputed findings for veterinary practice, and recommends that veterinarians stop attempting to assign breed labels to mixed-breed dogs whose origin they do not know.". This basically states and sums up that it is consensus within both the academic and professional communities.

As for the other section, I agree that "are" is a better grammatical fit which was a minor oversight on my part. PearlSt82 (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Are we conflating three individuals in a manner that suggests they are a greater grouping that is the case? Two vets and a lawyer? --Epeefleche (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The article cited is a literature review piece that discusses multiple Victoria Voith studies (a PhD academic who works with dog identification, DNA testing and visual id, and has done several scholarly studies on the subject), multiple studies at College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Florida, as well as the peer reviewed academic article in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (the 'two vets and a lawyer'). It is consensus within the academic and professional communities that visual identification of breeds is highly inaccurate and not recommended as best practice. Thats what the sources say. I don't think you'll find an academic source which suggests that visual identification of breed is a reliable method, or that it is recommended as professional best practice. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm proposing this change as the wording of the lede is a bit clunky to begin with. Right now it reads: "The pitbull is not a distinct breed which may make it difficult for experts to identify.[4][5][6] Any mixed breed dog may be labelled a "pitbull" if they have the characteristic square shaped head, however such broad classification is strongly criticized by advocates." I think it flows better and is a more accurate representation of the sources as "The pitbull is not a distinct breed which may make it difficult for experts to identify, and while mixed breed dogs are often labelled a "pitbull" if they have certain physical characteristics such as a square shaped head or bulky body type, visual identification of mixed breed dogs is not recommended by the scholarly community.[4][5][6][7]". Thoughts? PearlSt82 (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Any further discussion on this? Wikipedia:RS states "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." - the NCRC literature review piece explicitly states that Voith's and UF's findings are undisputed. If it would help wording to cite individual fragments, I can pull the literature review piece apart and cite the 5 articles mentioned separately. Note that the 2013 Voith study (fully viewable here) explicitly mentions misidentification of pit bulls/AST. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting attribution? In other words, saying: "x says that y says"? --Epeefleche (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Either would work, but I would like to establish consensus first. I feel that the sources establish that Voith's findings are consensus within the academic community. Her initial study in 2009 made a lot of waves within the community when DNA testing became available, and she published her findings to conferences and journals. There haven't been any challenges to her findings suggesting the opposite (that visual id of dog breed of unknown origin is reliable compared to DNA testing), and her work has been vetted by the journals and conferences that they were published in. This is stated in the NCRC literature review piece. While visual ID is still common place, noted in the 2013 Voith study and the "Irrationality Unleashed: The Pitfalls of Breed-Specific Legislation" article on the social construction of the Pit Bull as a breed, the 2012 JAVMA article recommends against the practice for professionals. I think my proposed sentence above: "The pitbull is not a distinct breed which may make it difficult for experts to identify, and while mixed breed dogs are often labelled a "pitbull" if they have certain physical characteristics such as a square shaped head or bulky body type, visual identification of mixed breed dogs is not recommended by the scholarly community." accurately describes the sources in a condensed way that would fit the lede. If necessary, I could expand this information into the body of the article, as there really isn't much written about visual id at all. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to cite the Voith studies by name in the lede to say something like "a 2009 study conducted by Victoria Voith concluded that visual identification of unknown mixed breeds are unreliable and do not conform with DNA tests, and based on these results a 2012 JAVMA article recommends this practice be abandoned by the veterinarians and shelters", but again, I'd like to get others thoughts to establish a consensus. Either way, I find the former wording of the sentence as "Any mixed breed dog may be labelled a "pitbull" if they have the characteristic square shaped head." to be extremely problematic and not at all reflective of what the sources actually say.PearlSt82 (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I made these changes to the article as well as removed the source "Dogs and Dogma: A Discussion of the Socio-Political Construction of Southern African Dog 'Breeds' as a Window on Social History" as it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Pit Bulls (unless I'm missing something). PearlSt82 (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That Voith "study" should be ignored. The initial 'publication' did not have peer-review and the second is from a 'journal' with no impact factor so the source is dubious. Anonopotamous 02:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desildorf (talk • contribs)

The first Voith study was published in Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science and the second in American Journal of Sociological Research. These both clearly meet WP:RS and both explicitly mention pit bulls, making them appropriate for inclusion in this article.PearlSt82 (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)