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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
This
edit request to
Pit bull has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under sub-category of breed specific legislation, change the dead link citation - 48 - referenced here: 'However a few jurisdictions, such as Singapore[48] and Franklin County, Ohio,[49] also classify the modern American Bulldog as a "pit bull-type dog".'
Change citation 48 to a new citation: https://www.ava.gov.sg/docs/default-source/tools-and-resources/resources-for-businesses/summaryofab_doglicensingcontrol_rules_15nov2010, which is a guide by the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore, describing a List of Scheduled Dogs (with effect from 15 Nov 2010) as 'Pit Bull, which includes the American Pit Bull Terrier (which is also known as the American Pit Bull and Pit Bull Terrier), American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldog, and crosses between them and other breeds.' Adalum ( talk) 22:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
In the Pit bull#Dog attack risk section the American Veterinary Medical Association points out how sled dogs and Siberian Huskies compose the majority of fatal attacks in parts of Canada. In northern communities sled dogs are allowed to run free in packs which is a deadly recipe for any breed. Also fwiw there are incidents with feral dogs in India, Canada and the US often with tragic consequences. To link these to the debate about pit bull dogs has the look of pseudo logic. Slight Smile 19:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Right now the lede doesn't do a good job of summarising the article. It also suffers a bit from WP:CITEKILL. I would suggest the important points for lede inclusion should be:
Additionally, the first two of the citations in the current lede do not appear in the body of the article and should probably be worked in. Any additional thoughts? I can start to work on a first pass at a draft. PearlSt82 ( talk) 13:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The book Pit Bull: The Battle Over an American Icon by Bronwen Dickey from 2017 might help explaining some of the controversy. As noted above, the controversial aspects are not well explained by the article, mainly due to lack of good WP:RS. Some of the book is available on Google Books, which some of the issues I'm raising can be seen around page 196. Some points raised:
Should these points be included in the article? If so, is this source an appropriate WP:RS for them? The book was published by Vintage and the author is a contributing editor at The Oxford American, and text is generally well researched. How would we approach without running afoul of NPOV and BLP when discussing Lynn and Clifton? PearlSt82 ( talk) 18:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
You just don't let anybody edit here do you. OWN. Slight Smile 21:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Pit bull has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove statement "The American Bulldog is also sometimes included." While both breeds did come from the original English bulldog. The American Bulldog was never crossbred with terriers; and has descended through English immigrants bringing their old bulldogs. American bulldogs were used as working farm and herding dogs. IF you have evidence to support the claim you made of English bulldogs, please provide it. 75.163.156.158 ( talk) 21:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I have added a clarifying statement about the term pit bull" being common as a dog type in American English, but not other English speaking juristictions. The Oxford dictionary defines the Pit bull ) as “a dog of an American variety of bull terrier...”, the Collins English dictionary makes a clear distinction, stating it is a "dog resembling the Staffordshire Bull Terrier but somewhat larger..." Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 ( talk) 21:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC).
The attack section on pitbull attack history reads like a like a pitbull advocacy webpage, almost verbatim on several points. Attack statistics by breed of dog is notably absent. There are no studies referenced (of which there are many) that address the pitbulls lower threshold for discharge aggression. There is reference to the ATTS which is an inherently biased test in which kennel clubs, the pitbull kennel for instance) hand picks the dogs to be tested to represent the breed as a whole. Further, the test has no validity, reliability or predictability as there have been no short or long term outcome measures to ascertain the accuracy of the test. That is, the test has never been tested and has no value in any statistical or research sense. There is a large portion of the entire page that is simply fraudulent and at the very least is misrepresentative of the research consensus as a whole. Pit bull advocates are endowed with 100s of millions of dollars and have not just slanted this page with extreme bias, they’ve entirely taken it over. Unlock it and I’ll provide quality large scale randomized controlled studies that are in direct opposition to the misinformation currently present. Locking pages to prevent other, more accurate information is hindering freedom of speech. Brysonreins ( talk) 05:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I work with statistics and research on a regular basis. Be very careful in attempting to take the high road of research when what you’re standing on has a very thin foundation. And please dont Pretend you’re able to recognize quality studies or can discern p values from confidence intervals-you likely haven’t even read an abstract and supposing you did have not the background to discern its intent other than what you’ve gleaned from pitbull advocacy sites. The evidence is overwhelming, when you look internationally. Fortunately our database at UF has access to international studies. I’m hoping the above aren’t the ones reviewing as there is blatant bias considering the thinly veiled vitriol in their responses. The largest sized RCTs on this topic are currently out of Sweden and Francevamong others. I can cite dozens of large scale studies that are in direct opposition to several claims made. I’ll get back with the most relevant assuming an unbiased moderator exists. The fact that pitbull advocates have hijacked this page is of little surprise-what is surprising is the clinging to less than a handful of poor quality studies against a tide of evidence in opposition. Brysonreins ( talk) 18:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Yesterday I added some information to the "Dog attack risk" section to the article that was missing. Specifically, what percentage of dog attacks are perpetrated by pit bulls in the US. A 2009 study in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [1] and a 2016 study in Clinical Pediatrics [2] found that number to be around 50%. If you have a literature review that states what percentage of all dog attacks are done by pit bulls then that should be used, but neither the AVMA nor the CDC review has that information. Ping PearlSt82. Anne drew ( talk) 15:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
What proportion of dog bites are done by pit bulls?is a fundamentally different question than
Is breed is a good sole predictor of dog bites?Claiming that studies that answer the first question should be superseded by the AVMA review which answers the second doesn't make much sense.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
This
edit request to
Pit bull has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Second paragraph, first sentence, delete the phrase "Owners of pit bull-type dogs deal with a strong breed stigma." This is an unsupported apologist statement. Furthermore, the article is about the pit bull breed group, not their owners.
Second paragraph, first sentence, delete the words "however" and "not" in the phrase "however, controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous." These edits are needed to make the phrase consistent with the cited source (footnote 1) which states: "If you consider only the much smaller number of cases that resulted in very severe injuries or fatalities, pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified." Furthermore, the data contained in the wiki article "Fatal Dog Attacks in the United States" clearly show that the pit bull breed group is disproportionately represented in fatal attacks. 2602:306:CC1E:389:317E:D577:AE82:4887 ( talk) 06:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
if you look at the edits that have been made the page slowly veers away from statistics and becomes incredibly ambigious the more edits pearlst82 adds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menacinghat ( talk • contribs) 02:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
your whole edit history is manipulating and deleting studies that don't fit your world view. at the very least the studies should be allowed to be read than deleted and hidden. the peer-reviewed scientific journal was deleted and secondly the scientific journal that took five years to compile was also deleted. the TWO peer-reviewed scientific journals must be respected as equal viewpoints
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Menacinghat ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
i have just gone through what has been deleted and peer-reviewed studies are being deleted and citation from an irish website affilated with the state on a ban similiar to britain was removed despite it being law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menacinghat ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
literature reviews and secondary studies by the AVMA and CDC are not the only view allowed in this wikipedia page. peer-reviewed scientific journals are completely fine. You have been warned previously above by another user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menacinghat ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Dogsbite.org#Reply_to_PearlSt82
you were also warned on dogsbites wikipedia page as above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menacinghat ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Breed-specific_legislation
some more info on pitbulls here
i don't see why we can't have alternative views from different scientists when there is studied peer-reviewed evidence more so than anything else. the information on irish and german restrictions on pit bulls is law so it is curious as to why it is also being deleted. I would be wiling to come to a concession if we could at least not be deleting the information on legislation in various countries as i can think of no reason why you are doing this. i will add back the legislation on Ireland and Germany if it is deleted. England and Wales are strangely left alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menacinghat ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to at least add a section that reports disagreement between definitions of what a pit bull is, it is a type of dog or one specific purebred dog breed (the American Pit Bull Terrier). The page's name change for "Pit bull (dog type)" or something different it's plausible. Like many others (including book authors such as Diane Jessup), I disagree with the pit bull definition presented on this page and there is a lot of data out there that can clarify these misconceptions. I think this belief started at the beginning of US and UK Breed Specific Legislation in the late twentieth century, when the American Kennel Club's (AKC) representative declared that "there was no such breed as a pit bull", obviously there was no breed of that name on the AKC's recognized breeds list, but it did exist in other centennial kennel clubs like the United Kennel Club and the American Dog Breeders Association. I believe it was an attempt to protect the American Staffordshire Terrier dog breed. But it had many bad consequences for the Pit Bull. Since then a lot of misinformation has been repeated and many biased people take advantage of this mess to foul the name of the breed and sell non-pitbull dogs. There is such breed as a pit bull and it is the American Pit Bull Terrier since 1898, a purebred and secular dog breed. The only real challenge is to distinguish the American Staffordshire Terrier from the American Pit Bull Terrier as (until now) they are the same genetically according to the Wisdom Panel, but have not been bred together for more than 3 decades. These two purebred breeds can being then distinguished mainly by bloodlines. There are some important links below: Adventurous36 ( talk) 01:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
One more question: Have the other old topics on this talk page been deleted? Adventurous36 ( talk) 01:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the main image doesn't quite illustrate the four breeds mentioned, and I also think it was assembled to show the four breeds as more similar than they are. I will give some main image suggestion: Adventurous36 ( talk) 19:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Pit bull has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi,
Paragraph 2 has a small spelling error "owner's behavior as the underlying causal factor." Should be casual.
Thanks Thesmackdown ( talk) 19:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done No, it's the correct spelling. Look up causal. O3000 ( talk) 19:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Pit bull has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the reference to Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt never owned a pit bull named Jack Brutus. Jack Brutus was a dog that was involved in the Spanish-American War, but the source cited (#84) itself makes no mention whatsoever of Teddy Roosevelt, nor does any other existing source. Teddy Roosevelt did own a bull terrier named Pete, however ( https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/610385/theodore-roosevelt-pets). 75.161.235.20 ( talk) 00:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Not done. You misread the sentence, which is referring to two separate dogs. That said, the Mental Floss article you linked to is a good source for TR's Pete, so I'll add it to the article. oknazevad ( talk) 02:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
As discussed previously on this talk page, primary source additions for medical information are not appropriate. Per WP:MEDRS: Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources. Epistimological and statistical claims need to come from reliable, recent, SECONDARY studies. The same opinion piece posted twice from an NBC blog and livescience are not reliable secondary sources for this information. PearlSt82 ( talk) 13:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
psychologytoday, livescience and a peer-reviewed scientific journal are perfectly respectable and have no reason to be mysteriously deleted. This article shows bias in part as was stated before by other users. You're not fooling anyone.
Menacinghat
Could anyone expand on this by adding statistics or information about pitbulls from other parts of the world?
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:5385:A200:E0EB:27A4:CA13:E717 ( talk) 12:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.
Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.
Primary sources are not banned by Wikipedia
@pearlSt82, I have added back the statistics using an NBC article as a secondary source. Thanks 2A00:23C4:5385:A200:B016:60DC:3CEE:82CB ( talk) 21:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, "owners of pit bull-type dogs deal with a strong breed stigma; however, controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous."[1] Because owners of stigmatized breeds are more likely to have involvement in criminal or violent acts, breed correlations may have the owner's behavior as the underlying causal factor.[1] Some jurisdictions have enacted legislation banning the group of breeds, and some insurance companies do not cover liability from pit bull bites. Among other roles, pit bulls have served as police dogs, search and rescue dogs, and several have appeared on film.
Shouldn't this section be merged with breed-specific rather than be in the intro?
Even if this is reported accurately - which it still isn't - white supremacist groups aren't using images of "the pit bull", but rather one very specific graphic - I'm not sure that this is WP:DUE. The Taco Bell dog got MUCH more coverage than this, and is still not represented in the Chihuahua (dog) article. PearlSt82 ( talk) 11:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
PearlSt82 ( talk) 15:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Is information about insurance companies and bans really necessary in an intro about a dog when there is already a lengthy section below? Can we have a consensus of other users.-- Menacinghat ( talk) 18:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I have tagged the Nipper content with Template:Contradict-inline because it contradicts what is in the article Nipper.
The dog, which died 125 years ago, has only been memorialized in a painting and there seems to be no photographic evidence to show how accurate the painting may, or may not, have been — and there is no documentary evidence for the dog's breed heritage from the 1890s. For generations, the breed of the dog in the painting has been debated, with no consensus and no end to the debate. Only in the last 10 or 20 years have pit bull afficionados glommed onto the image to claim it as their own as a "pit bull". Prior to that, the dog had almost universally been described in literature as a Fox Terrier or Jack Russell Terrier, and only occasionally to "include some bull terrier" with no further explanation of what "bull terrier" meant, or from which era that language came. As you probably already know, the term "bull terrier" is ambiguous, and though often used to mean "pit bull type" or similar, it was also used to mean the formal breed of Bull Terrier, a particular breed of dog with a uniquely odd facial structure that does not look like a pit bull. Only of late have people leapt to the conclusion that this dog's breed somehow meant "pit bull" or "pit bull mix", but looking at the literature over the decades shows such assumption are only a recent phenomenon.
As such — that the dog's breed remains unknown, cannot be known, and no one can agree on guessing it — it would be inappropriate to include it in Pit bull#Notable pit bulls because it is not representative of the subject of the article. Per WP:ONUS, it is on you to prove your position. Sure, you can cherry pick only the citations which call him a pit bull, and I could pick out a dozen more that never even mention "bull terrier" let alone "pit bull". Both efforts would be a waste of our time.
The best guide is, perhaps, Wikipedia:Relevance.
The content about the Nipper painting should be removed from the article.
— Normal Op ( talk) 04:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Style question: should the dog names have quotation marks?
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk) 14:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
As if discussing a 1890s painting of a fox terrier was bad enough, we now have revolving citations for Buster Brown's dog Tige. One calls him a bulldog, one calls him an APBT, and a third calls him a pit bull. I assert that none of the citations used knows what Tige was. It is an early 1900's comic strip character. If you can find one of the comic strips where the dog's breed was announced or mentioned in the strip, then go with that. Otherwise, ALL of the sources are just guessing and are NOT reliable for this sort of information. If you look at enough of the comics, you'll start to see similarities with Bulldog, the English bulldog type. But our opinion on what a comic strip character is... is not a source. Our evaluation is, however, sufficient to discredit those other "guesses". Normal Op ( talk) 11:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
See also Talk:Buster Brown/Archives/2020#Breed of Tige. Normal Op ( talk) 22:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
There is absolutely no sourcing for the idea that "breed-specific legislation" is a derogatory term used by advocates. This is pure OR. Even dogsbite.org, the most prominent BSL advocates, refer to it as "BSL" and "Breed-specific legislation". If there are no sources posted for the notion that this is an advocacy term, this should be removed. PearlSt82 ( talk) 07:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
OR refers to content in articles, not discussions on talk pages. We are allowed to discuss sources and possible issues including bias or language. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 13:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
It's possible that "breed specific legislation" was indeed a derogatory term coined by the opposition to "pit bull bans" (which have a lengthy history in the USA) or maybe it was the banning side's idea to encompass other breeds and soften the term from "pit bull ban" to "breed specific legislation". I surely don't know and haven't come across any sources describing the origin of the term. Perhaps it is similar to the term " ag-gag" which was coined by the animal rights people as a derogatory term for legislation banning the lying to obtain employment, followed by extended periods of undercover filming, in order to create horrific heavily-edited footage (by organizations such as PETA) in order to get entire industries condemned in the " Court of public opinion", rather than reporting local and/or individual abuses to the appropriate authorities to get abusive behavior investigated by authorities (our law enforcement and judicial systems). But even if the origins of "BSL" or "ag-gag" come from one side or the other, it doesn't change the fact that both terms are likely here to stay and are now broadly used by both sides of the debates.
Then there is term "pit bull lobby". Likely coined by those opposed to keeping pit bulls as pets in residential settings to describe the large organizations who promote and lobby for the right to keep pit bulls as pets. I'm not sure if there are enough reliable sources that describe/discuss the term "pit bull lobby" to make a Wikipedia page out of it, but it really ought to be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia because it is ubiquitous in its use in the English speaking world and certainly doesn't exist in any dictionary (because it's an esoteric term, not a general word). It could, perhaps, be covered by a section in the Pit bull article, because it is most closely tied to the pit bull subject (less than it is tied to, say, the Breed-specific legislation subject). In the film, at 38:40, Ledy VanKavage is called a lobbyist. The term "lobbying" has a known definition, and the activities of VanKavage's BSL-pre-emption activities are indeed "lobbying" as described in Lobbying in the United States. I don't know why PearlSt82 keeps denying a "pit bull lobby" exists (using the phrase "shadowy pit bull lobby"); VanKavage has been pretty open about what she does. I doubt AVMA & AVSAB have ever been lumped in with said lobby, as suggested by PearlSt82, but they have certainly been affected by the lobby's efforts. That IS, after all, what lobbies do.
I broadened this section/discussion to include the lobby phrase to point out that these are both topics "about pit bulls" that are repeatedly coming up and oft-discussed in media and other reliable sources, and yet are not covered (or covered neutrally) in the Wikipedia pit bull article. We have a litany of complaints on the Talk page about how this article fails NPOV and is biased, and is NOT covering these topics, and the edit history shows repeated attempts to keep the article the way it is with no intervention permitted by "outside" wiki editors.
Several editors seem to be on a roll to edit this article right now, and I think it's quite possible that the unbalanced POV issues can be cleaned up. Normal Op ( talk) 23:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Neither of these sources are RS - citywatchla has no information posted about themselves online and don't meet WP:NEWSORG, and searching WP:RSN, there is strong consensus that Forbes contributor pieces, of which this is one, are not reliable. Previous RSN discussions include on this issue: 1, 2, 3, 4. PearlSt82 ( talk) 20:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Having been challenged to find sources for the term "pit bull lobby", I did a google search today, using google's "news" tab only, and put together the below list. I have separated out the levels of article. The first section are newspapers or news agencies (online sources, of course). These were articles that did NOT indicate they were opinion pieces or editorials. The next section is for opinion pieces; some of the authors are regular contributors to newspapers. Then follows the advocacy publications. Since the term "pit bull lobby" is considered derogatory by pit bull advocates, and since it is not a formal term that has been "owned" by the them, it is highly unlikely that you will find any author using the term except those who are opposed to lobbying efforts on behalf of pit bulls. Sorry, PearlSt82, I know you won't like a single one of these articles, but to help with "the call for NPOV", I felt compelled to put together this list. Wikipedia guidelines specifically state that a source does not need to be unbiased ( WP:BIASEDSOURCES) and in fact may be useful for helping to create NPOV in an article. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, it is possible that some of the sources considered less-reliable might be valuable "in context", such as a definition of what is considered the "pit bull lobby" or the scope of which organizations are considered part of said lobby. If anything, this list should at least prove that the term (a) is not uncommon, (b) has been used for at least 15 years, and (c) isn't likely to go away.
— Normal Op ( talk) 21:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
These are articles that do NOT indicate they are opinion pieces, etc.
Some of these are authored by regular contributors to these publications. These are included here to show how the term "pit bull lobby" is used by a wide array of authors, and the first one on the list defines the term.
Undoubtedly, the term "pit bull lobby" was coined by those engaged in opposing lobbying efforts that are pro-pit bull.
— Normal Op ( talk) 21:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Recently there have been two major changes to the lede:
1. Removal of AVMA sourcing and other sourcing referencing the "danger" of pit bulls. The "Dog attack" risk section is very well sourced from high-quality veterinary and animal behavior sources like the AVMA, CDC and ASPCA. Since this is a major part of the article, I think it needs to go in the lede.
2. Addition of new content for lede that suggests that pit bulls disproportionately bite more. This exact wording is "Each year in the United States, pit bull type dogs are responsible for hundreds of bites on humans or attacks on other animals". These sentences are sourced to Forbes and CityWatch Los Angeles. The first sentence contains "and the dog's proclivity to latching on while biting" which not representative of the source, which is National Geographic, and the last sentence "In the United States numerous advocacy organizations have sprung up in defense of the type, and the pit bull has been the focus of an intense "rebranding" effort in recent years to erase the stigma associated with them." is sourced to a New York Times Opinion piece. We should absolutely not be giving weight to the popular press for how "dangerous" pit bulls are. Instead, we should be going by reliable professional sources like the AVMA, CDC, ASPCA and others for making claims on:
For these issues, we should be reliant on high-quality WP:MEDRS sources, not the popular press, and to consider sources like the AVMA "advocacy groups" that are trying to 'rebrand' the breed is not appropriate. PearlSt82 ( talk) 11:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The lead should serve as a summary of the article. The risk of these dogs is a prominent piece of this article, it is non-compliant with NPOV and MOS to omit this. Please spare us the tedious challenges to factual information. Cavalryman It is inappropriate for you to unilateral dictate what the article should cover, especially when that's inconsistent with how we structure articles. We base information on what's been heavily reported in RS. It is wholly appropriate to include a conglomeration of reputational, statistical, scientific, and lay information that has been reported in scientific sources. Your opinion about what the article should focus on (the dogs as pets, what good pets they are or are not) is not what we can allow to guide content, sorry. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 14:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
1) The "locking mechanism" or latching on while biting is discussed in several paragraphs in the article. Not every claim in the lead needs to be sourced (this one is) and the sources are provided later.
2) "Whataboutism" is not appropriate for an article. That's called WP:SYNTH. Sources say that pit bulls are responsible for hundreds of attacks a year and that they are disproportionate compared to other breeds. It's not our job to play funny with the stats or compare it to other breeds. The comparisons in RS describe the role of pit bulls as disproportionate.
3) The nature vs nurture debate is indeed significant both as a matter of public discourse. Studies linked with pro-pitbull advocacy organizations are accordingly given less weight.
4) Professionals giving their opinion and who are published in reliable sources is exactly what we rely on.
I would suggest you review the prior GA reviews, which this article failed, and take that feedback into account, because this merry-go-round of making arguments about pit bulls and why facts are 'unfair' is what was repeatedly brought up as a reason the article didn't meet GA criteria. Bias or advocacy in favor of pit bulls and these types of counter arguments (example: calling statistics about pit bull deaths/maulings "unclear" while also presenting a precise graph of how many occurred was criticized in the last GA review) are a roadblock to improving this article that have been raised by each of the prior GA reviewers. Let's be careful not to continue that trend. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 14:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
You need to support your arguments with sources or reference to sources used in the article. 1) Sources note that pit bulls have a reputation for a "locking" or latching bite. Comparisons to other dogs not mentioned in sources are WP:SYNTH. And, yet again, this is discussed extensively in the article. Please do not rehash the same points without acknowledging obvious counter arguments. 2) The source you mentioned clearly alludes to the fact that pit bull attacks, based on recorded statistics, are disproportionate; other sources state this explicitly. What they are offering are theories as to why, not disputing the basic facts. 3) There are numerous pro-pit bull advocacy organizations that either commission studies or are linked with veterinary professionals through funding/other activism work. If it's RS, these sources are acceptable, but such commentary should not be given disproportionate weight. Neutral, mathematical statistics are preferable where possible. 4) Where are official AVMA or CDC statements that are supposedly being outweighed by the opinions of "a single professional?"
Again, stop making arguments about what other breeds do or do not do without references to sources. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 15:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
PearlSt82 ( talk) 15:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
It isn't Wikipedia's job to report statisticsThis is a flat out wrong. This is like saying we don't include photos on Wikipedia. Statistics are secondary sources; they are compiled and assembled by researchers and then presented. Commentary on those statistics also requires a secondary source. No OR material is presented in the article.
Even national "expert organizations" are subject to bias, and the notion that we can make conclusions about vague notions of "dangerousness" by breed yet documenting bites and incidents per breed on an annual basis is inherently flawed is contradictory and ridiculous. Show me where any of these organizations directly dispute the disproportionate number of pit bull bites relative to population and number of dog bites recorded in general. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 17:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Been away from my computer for hours; just read this exchange; here are my comments/observations:
— Normal Op ( talk) 19:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
These are definitely primary studies - data from a single intake point. Regarding conclusions in the literature - I think it should be noted there are roughly two categories of academic/professional sources. The first, from veterinary/animal behaviorists, include numerous primary studies, and a few literature reviews and position statements. I have already posted many here, so there is no need to revisit them in detail - but the trend going through all of them is that they state that there are inherent difficulties in capturing reliable dog bite statistics, and that dog-human aggression is not breed related, but linked to other factors, especially in severe/fatal incidents. The second group of sources, includes several dozen primary studies from medical journals, of which you have posted a couple. These are almost always raw statistics and don't raise any of the concerns of the veterinary sources. Some of them (Bini and Cohn being one) will go as far to recommend legislation. As far as I know, there are no literature reviews or position statements coming from medical bodies in a similar fashion that there is with the veterinary sources. It is for these reasons - both that veterinary sources are closer professionally to the issues at hand (animal behavior, aggression), and they incorporate more secondary literature reviews and position statements, that I am suggesting they be given more weight than the primary medical studies and raw statistics. PearlSt82 ( talk) 23:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
For what it is worth, this is one of the most constructive debates I have ever had the pleasure to witness on a Wikipedia dog-related talk page. The focus on the issues - without personal remarks - by committed and articulate editors is a credit to all involved. William Harris talk 22:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The 17.6% comes from the Voith study "Comparison of Visual and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs and Inter-Observer Reliability" (2013) whose sampling of dogs was twenty (20). Twenty! None of the dogs were purebred; half of the dogs were a mixture of 4 to 6 dog breeds (per DNA testing); all dogs DNA-tested with no higher than 25% of any single breed (except for 1 which tested 50%/25%/other). The dogs were presented through media (not in person) to 900 persons who were queried with basically two questions: (1) "Do you think this dog is probably a purebred?" (Any response other than "No" was counted as a fail!), and (2) "What do you think is the most predominant breed (and second most predominant breed)"? I'm shocked that the hit-rate was as high as 17.6%. And this 'caca' has been promulgated as breed identification gospel ever since. Normal Op ( talk) 23:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Any idea why this other article Bull-type terriers exists? William Harris talk 09:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
This
edit request to
Pit bull has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under sub-category of breed specific legislation, change the dead link citation - 48 - referenced here: 'However a few jurisdictions, such as Singapore[48] and Franklin County, Ohio,[49] also classify the modern American Bulldog as a "pit bull-type dog".'
Change citation 48 to a new citation: https://www.ava.gov.sg/docs/default-source/tools-and-resources/resources-for-businesses/summaryofab_doglicensingcontrol_rules_15nov2010, which is a guide by the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore, describing a List of Scheduled Dogs (with effect from 15 Nov 2010) as 'Pit Bull, which includes the American Pit Bull Terrier (which is also known as the American Pit Bull and Pit Bull Terrier), American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldog, and crosses between them and other breeds.' Adalum ( talk) 22:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
In the Pit bull#Dog attack risk section the American Veterinary Medical Association points out how sled dogs and Siberian Huskies compose the majority of fatal attacks in parts of Canada. In northern communities sled dogs are allowed to run free in packs which is a deadly recipe for any breed. Also fwiw there are incidents with feral dogs in India, Canada and the US often with tragic consequences. To link these to the debate about pit bull dogs has the look of pseudo logic. Slight Smile 19:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Right now the lede doesn't do a good job of summarising the article. It also suffers a bit from WP:CITEKILL. I would suggest the important points for lede inclusion should be:
Additionally, the first two of the citations in the current lede do not appear in the body of the article and should probably be worked in. Any additional thoughts? I can start to work on a first pass at a draft. PearlSt82 ( talk) 13:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The book Pit Bull: The Battle Over an American Icon by Bronwen Dickey from 2017 might help explaining some of the controversy. As noted above, the controversial aspects are not well explained by the article, mainly due to lack of good WP:RS. Some of the book is available on Google Books, which some of the issues I'm raising can be seen around page 196. Some points raised:
Should these points be included in the article? If so, is this source an appropriate WP:RS for them? The book was published by Vintage and the author is a contributing editor at The Oxford American, and text is generally well researched. How would we approach without running afoul of NPOV and BLP when discussing Lynn and Clifton? PearlSt82 ( talk) 18:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
You just don't let anybody edit here do you. OWN. Slight Smile 21:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Pit bull has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove statement "The American Bulldog is also sometimes included." While both breeds did come from the original English bulldog. The American Bulldog was never crossbred with terriers; and has descended through English immigrants bringing their old bulldogs. American bulldogs were used as working farm and herding dogs. IF you have evidence to support the claim you made of English bulldogs, please provide it. 75.163.156.158 ( talk) 21:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I have added a clarifying statement about the term pit bull" being common as a dog type in American English, but not other English speaking juristictions. The Oxford dictionary defines the Pit bull ) as “a dog of an American variety of bull terrier...”, the Collins English dictionary makes a clear distinction, stating it is a "dog resembling the Staffordshire Bull Terrier but somewhat larger..." Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 ( talk) 21:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC).
The attack section on pitbull attack history reads like a like a pitbull advocacy webpage, almost verbatim on several points. Attack statistics by breed of dog is notably absent. There are no studies referenced (of which there are many) that address the pitbulls lower threshold for discharge aggression. There is reference to the ATTS which is an inherently biased test in which kennel clubs, the pitbull kennel for instance) hand picks the dogs to be tested to represent the breed as a whole. Further, the test has no validity, reliability or predictability as there have been no short or long term outcome measures to ascertain the accuracy of the test. That is, the test has never been tested and has no value in any statistical or research sense. There is a large portion of the entire page that is simply fraudulent and at the very least is misrepresentative of the research consensus as a whole. Pit bull advocates are endowed with 100s of millions of dollars and have not just slanted this page with extreme bias, they’ve entirely taken it over. Unlock it and I’ll provide quality large scale randomized controlled studies that are in direct opposition to the misinformation currently present. Locking pages to prevent other, more accurate information is hindering freedom of speech. Brysonreins ( talk) 05:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I work with statistics and research on a regular basis. Be very careful in attempting to take the high road of research when what you’re standing on has a very thin foundation. And please dont Pretend you’re able to recognize quality studies or can discern p values from confidence intervals-you likely haven’t even read an abstract and supposing you did have not the background to discern its intent other than what you’ve gleaned from pitbull advocacy sites. The evidence is overwhelming, when you look internationally. Fortunately our database at UF has access to international studies. I’m hoping the above aren’t the ones reviewing as there is blatant bias considering the thinly veiled vitriol in their responses. The largest sized RCTs on this topic are currently out of Sweden and Francevamong others. I can cite dozens of large scale studies that are in direct opposition to several claims made. I’ll get back with the most relevant assuming an unbiased moderator exists. The fact that pitbull advocates have hijacked this page is of little surprise-what is surprising is the clinging to less than a handful of poor quality studies against a tide of evidence in opposition. Brysonreins ( talk) 18:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Yesterday I added some information to the "Dog attack risk" section to the article that was missing. Specifically, what percentage of dog attacks are perpetrated by pit bulls in the US. A 2009 study in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [1] and a 2016 study in Clinical Pediatrics [2] found that number to be around 50%. If you have a literature review that states what percentage of all dog attacks are done by pit bulls then that should be used, but neither the AVMA nor the CDC review has that information. Ping PearlSt82. Anne drew ( talk) 15:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
What proportion of dog bites are done by pit bulls?is a fundamentally different question than
Is breed is a good sole predictor of dog bites?Claiming that studies that answer the first question should be superseded by the AVMA review which answers the second doesn't make much sense.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
This
edit request to
Pit bull has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Second paragraph, first sentence, delete the phrase "Owners of pit bull-type dogs deal with a strong breed stigma." This is an unsupported apologist statement. Furthermore, the article is about the pit bull breed group, not their owners.
Second paragraph, first sentence, delete the words "however" and "not" in the phrase "however, controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous." These edits are needed to make the phrase consistent with the cited source (footnote 1) which states: "If you consider only the much smaller number of cases that resulted in very severe injuries or fatalities, pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified." Furthermore, the data contained in the wiki article "Fatal Dog Attacks in the United States" clearly show that the pit bull breed group is disproportionately represented in fatal attacks. 2602:306:CC1E:389:317E:D577:AE82:4887 ( talk) 06:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
if you look at the edits that have been made the page slowly veers away from statistics and becomes incredibly ambigious the more edits pearlst82 adds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menacinghat ( talk • contribs) 02:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
your whole edit history is manipulating and deleting studies that don't fit your world view. at the very least the studies should be allowed to be read than deleted and hidden. the peer-reviewed scientific journal was deleted and secondly the scientific journal that took five years to compile was also deleted. the TWO peer-reviewed scientific journals must be respected as equal viewpoints
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Menacinghat ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
i have just gone through what has been deleted and peer-reviewed studies are being deleted and citation from an irish website affilated with the state on a ban similiar to britain was removed despite it being law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menacinghat ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
literature reviews and secondary studies by the AVMA and CDC are not the only view allowed in this wikipedia page. peer-reviewed scientific journals are completely fine. You have been warned previously above by another user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menacinghat ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Dogsbite.org#Reply_to_PearlSt82
you were also warned on dogsbites wikipedia page as above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menacinghat ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Breed-specific_legislation
some more info on pitbulls here
i don't see why we can't have alternative views from different scientists when there is studied peer-reviewed evidence more so than anything else. the information on irish and german restrictions on pit bulls is law so it is curious as to why it is also being deleted. I would be wiling to come to a concession if we could at least not be deleting the information on legislation in various countries as i can think of no reason why you are doing this. i will add back the legislation on Ireland and Germany if it is deleted. England and Wales are strangely left alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menacinghat ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to at least add a section that reports disagreement between definitions of what a pit bull is, it is a type of dog or one specific purebred dog breed (the American Pit Bull Terrier). The page's name change for "Pit bull (dog type)" or something different it's plausible. Like many others (including book authors such as Diane Jessup), I disagree with the pit bull definition presented on this page and there is a lot of data out there that can clarify these misconceptions. I think this belief started at the beginning of US and UK Breed Specific Legislation in the late twentieth century, when the American Kennel Club's (AKC) representative declared that "there was no such breed as a pit bull", obviously there was no breed of that name on the AKC's recognized breeds list, but it did exist in other centennial kennel clubs like the United Kennel Club and the American Dog Breeders Association. I believe it was an attempt to protect the American Staffordshire Terrier dog breed. But it had many bad consequences for the Pit Bull. Since then a lot of misinformation has been repeated and many biased people take advantage of this mess to foul the name of the breed and sell non-pitbull dogs. There is such breed as a pit bull and it is the American Pit Bull Terrier since 1898, a purebred and secular dog breed. The only real challenge is to distinguish the American Staffordshire Terrier from the American Pit Bull Terrier as (until now) they are the same genetically according to the Wisdom Panel, but have not been bred together for more than 3 decades. These two purebred breeds can being then distinguished mainly by bloodlines. There are some important links below: Adventurous36 ( talk) 01:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
One more question: Have the other old topics on this talk page been deleted? Adventurous36 ( talk) 01:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the main image doesn't quite illustrate the four breeds mentioned, and I also think it was assembled to show the four breeds as more similar than they are. I will give some main image suggestion: Adventurous36 ( talk) 19:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Pit bull has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi,
Paragraph 2 has a small spelling error "owner's behavior as the underlying causal factor." Should be casual.
Thanks Thesmackdown ( talk) 19:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done No, it's the correct spelling. Look up causal. O3000 ( talk) 19:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Pit bull has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the reference to Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt never owned a pit bull named Jack Brutus. Jack Brutus was a dog that was involved in the Spanish-American War, but the source cited (#84) itself makes no mention whatsoever of Teddy Roosevelt, nor does any other existing source. Teddy Roosevelt did own a bull terrier named Pete, however ( https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/610385/theodore-roosevelt-pets). 75.161.235.20 ( talk) 00:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Not done. You misread the sentence, which is referring to two separate dogs. That said, the Mental Floss article you linked to is a good source for TR's Pete, so I'll add it to the article. oknazevad ( talk) 02:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
As discussed previously on this talk page, primary source additions for medical information are not appropriate. Per WP:MEDRS: Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources. Epistimological and statistical claims need to come from reliable, recent, SECONDARY studies. The same opinion piece posted twice from an NBC blog and livescience are not reliable secondary sources for this information. PearlSt82 ( talk) 13:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
psychologytoday, livescience and a peer-reviewed scientific journal are perfectly respectable and have no reason to be mysteriously deleted. This article shows bias in part as was stated before by other users. You're not fooling anyone.
Menacinghat
Could anyone expand on this by adding statistics or information about pitbulls from other parts of the world?
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:5385:A200:E0EB:27A4:CA13:E717 ( talk) 12:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.
Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.
Primary sources are not banned by Wikipedia
@pearlSt82, I have added back the statistics using an NBC article as a secondary source. Thanks 2A00:23C4:5385:A200:B016:60DC:3CEE:82CB ( talk) 21:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, "owners of pit bull-type dogs deal with a strong breed stigma; however, controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous."[1] Because owners of stigmatized breeds are more likely to have involvement in criminal or violent acts, breed correlations may have the owner's behavior as the underlying causal factor.[1] Some jurisdictions have enacted legislation banning the group of breeds, and some insurance companies do not cover liability from pit bull bites. Among other roles, pit bulls have served as police dogs, search and rescue dogs, and several have appeared on film.
Shouldn't this section be merged with breed-specific rather than be in the intro?
Even if this is reported accurately - which it still isn't - white supremacist groups aren't using images of "the pit bull", but rather one very specific graphic - I'm not sure that this is WP:DUE. The Taco Bell dog got MUCH more coverage than this, and is still not represented in the Chihuahua (dog) article. PearlSt82 ( talk) 11:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
PearlSt82 ( talk) 15:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Is information about insurance companies and bans really necessary in an intro about a dog when there is already a lengthy section below? Can we have a consensus of other users.-- Menacinghat ( talk) 18:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I have tagged the Nipper content with Template:Contradict-inline because it contradicts what is in the article Nipper.
The dog, which died 125 years ago, has only been memorialized in a painting and there seems to be no photographic evidence to show how accurate the painting may, or may not, have been — and there is no documentary evidence for the dog's breed heritage from the 1890s. For generations, the breed of the dog in the painting has been debated, with no consensus and no end to the debate. Only in the last 10 or 20 years have pit bull afficionados glommed onto the image to claim it as their own as a "pit bull". Prior to that, the dog had almost universally been described in literature as a Fox Terrier or Jack Russell Terrier, and only occasionally to "include some bull terrier" with no further explanation of what "bull terrier" meant, or from which era that language came. As you probably already know, the term "bull terrier" is ambiguous, and though often used to mean "pit bull type" or similar, it was also used to mean the formal breed of Bull Terrier, a particular breed of dog with a uniquely odd facial structure that does not look like a pit bull. Only of late have people leapt to the conclusion that this dog's breed somehow meant "pit bull" or "pit bull mix", but looking at the literature over the decades shows such assumption are only a recent phenomenon.
As such — that the dog's breed remains unknown, cannot be known, and no one can agree on guessing it — it would be inappropriate to include it in Pit bull#Notable pit bulls because it is not representative of the subject of the article. Per WP:ONUS, it is on you to prove your position. Sure, you can cherry pick only the citations which call him a pit bull, and I could pick out a dozen more that never even mention "bull terrier" let alone "pit bull". Both efforts would be a waste of our time.
The best guide is, perhaps, Wikipedia:Relevance.
The content about the Nipper painting should be removed from the article.
— Normal Op ( talk) 04:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Style question: should the dog names have quotation marks?
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk) 14:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
As if discussing a 1890s painting of a fox terrier was bad enough, we now have revolving citations for Buster Brown's dog Tige. One calls him a bulldog, one calls him an APBT, and a third calls him a pit bull. I assert that none of the citations used knows what Tige was. It is an early 1900's comic strip character. If you can find one of the comic strips where the dog's breed was announced or mentioned in the strip, then go with that. Otherwise, ALL of the sources are just guessing and are NOT reliable for this sort of information. If you look at enough of the comics, you'll start to see similarities with Bulldog, the English bulldog type. But our opinion on what a comic strip character is... is not a source. Our evaluation is, however, sufficient to discredit those other "guesses". Normal Op ( talk) 11:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
See also Talk:Buster Brown/Archives/2020#Breed of Tige. Normal Op ( talk) 22:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
There is absolutely no sourcing for the idea that "breed-specific legislation" is a derogatory term used by advocates. This is pure OR. Even dogsbite.org, the most prominent BSL advocates, refer to it as "BSL" and "Breed-specific legislation". If there are no sources posted for the notion that this is an advocacy term, this should be removed. PearlSt82 ( talk) 07:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
OR refers to content in articles, not discussions on talk pages. We are allowed to discuss sources and possible issues including bias or language. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 13:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
It's possible that "breed specific legislation" was indeed a derogatory term coined by the opposition to "pit bull bans" (which have a lengthy history in the USA) or maybe it was the banning side's idea to encompass other breeds and soften the term from "pit bull ban" to "breed specific legislation". I surely don't know and haven't come across any sources describing the origin of the term. Perhaps it is similar to the term " ag-gag" which was coined by the animal rights people as a derogatory term for legislation banning the lying to obtain employment, followed by extended periods of undercover filming, in order to create horrific heavily-edited footage (by organizations such as PETA) in order to get entire industries condemned in the " Court of public opinion", rather than reporting local and/or individual abuses to the appropriate authorities to get abusive behavior investigated by authorities (our law enforcement and judicial systems). But even if the origins of "BSL" or "ag-gag" come from one side or the other, it doesn't change the fact that both terms are likely here to stay and are now broadly used by both sides of the debates.
Then there is term "pit bull lobby". Likely coined by those opposed to keeping pit bulls as pets in residential settings to describe the large organizations who promote and lobby for the right to keep pit bulls as pets. I'm not sure if there are enough reliable sources that describe/discuss the term "pit bull lobby" to make a Wikipedia page out of it, but it really ought to be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia because it is ubiquitous in its use in the English speaking world and certainly doesn't exist in any dictionary (because it's an esoteric term, not a general word). It could, perhaps, be covered by a section in the Pit bull article, because it is most closely tied to the pit bull subject (less than it is tied to, say, the Breed-specific legislation subject). In the film, at 38:40, Ledy VanKavage is called a lobbyist. The term "lobbying" has a known definition, and the activities of VanKavage's BSL-pre-emption activities are indeed "lobbying" as described in Lobbying in the United States. I don't know why PearlSt82 keeps denying a "pit bull lobby" exists (using the phrase "shadowy pit bull lobby"); VanKavage has been pretty open about what she does. I doubt AVMA & AVSAB have ever been lumped in with said lobby, as suggested by PearlSt82, but they have certainly been affected by the lobby's efforts. That IS, after all, what lobbies do.
I broadened this section/discussion to include the lobby phrase to point out that these are both topics "about pit bulls" that are repeatedly coming up and oft-discussed in media and other reliable sources, and yet are not covered (or covered neutrally) in the Wikipedia pit bull article. We have a litany of complaints on the Talk page about how this article fails NPOV and is biased, and is NOT covering these topics, and the edit history shows repeated attempts to keep the article the way it is with no intervention permitted by "outside" wiki editors.
Several editors seem to be on a roll to edit this article right now, and I think it's quite possible that the unbalanced POV issues can be cleaned up. Normal Op ( talk) 23:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Neither of these sources are RS - citywatchla has no information posted about themselves online and don't meet WP:NEWSORG, and searching WP:RSN, there is strong consensus that Forbes contributor pieces, of which this is one, are not reliable. Previous RSN discussions include on this issue: 1, 2, 3, 4. PearlSt82 ( talk) 20:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Having been challenged to find sources for the term "pit bull lobby", I did a google search today, using google's "news" tab only, and put together the below list. I have separated out the levels of article. The first section are newspapers or news agencies (online sources, of course). These were articles that did NOT indicate they were opinion pieces or editorials. The next section is for opinion pieces; some of the authors are regular contributors to newspapers. Then follows the advocacy publications. Since the term "pit bull lobby" is considered derogatory by pit bull advocates, and since it is not a formal term that has been "owned" by the them, it is highly unlikely that you will find any author using the term except those who are opposed to lobbying efforts on behalf of pit bulls. Sorry, PearlSt82, I know you won't like a single one of these articles, but to help with "the call for NPOV", I felt compelled to put together this list. Wikipedia guidelines specifically state that a source does not need to be unbiased ( WP:BIASEDSOURCES) and in fact may be useful for helping to create NPOV in an article. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, it is possible that some of the sources considered less-reliable might be valuable "in context", such as a definition of what is considered the "pit bull lobby" or the scope of which organizations are considered part of said lobby. If anything, this list should at least prove that the term (a) is not uncommon, (b) has been used for at least 15 years, and (c) isn't likely to go away.
— Normal Op ( talk) 21:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
These are articles that do NOT indicate they are opinion pieces, etc.
Some of these are authored by regular contributors to these publications. These are included here to show how the term "pit bull lobby" is used by a wide array of authors, and the first one on the list defines the term.
Undoubtedly, the term "pit bull lobby" was coined by those engaged in opposing lobbying efforts that are pro-pit bull.
— Normal Op ( talk) 21:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Recently there have been two major changes to the lede:
1. Removal of AVMA sourcing and other sourcing referencing the "danger" of pit bulls. The "Dog attack" risk section is very well sourced from high-quality veterinary and animal behavior sources like the AVMA, CDC and ASPCA. Since this is a major part of the article, I think it needs to go in the lede.
2. Addition of new content for lede that suggests that pit bulls disproportionately bite more. This exact wording is "Each year in the United States, pit bull type dogs are responsible for hundreds of bites on humans or attacks on other animals". These sentences are sourced to Forbes and CityWatch Los Angeles. The first sentence contains "and the dog's proclivity to latching on while biting" which not representative of the source, which is National Geographic, and the last sentence "In the United States numerous advocacy organizations have sprung up in defense of the type, and the pit bull has been the focus of an intense "rebranding" effort in recent years to erase the stigma associated with them." is sourced to a New York Times Opinion piece. We should absolutely not be giving weight to the popular press for how "dangerous" pit bulls are. Instead, we should be going by reliable professional sources like the AVMA, CDC, ASPCA and others for making claims on:
For these issues, we should be reliant on high-quality WP:MEDRS sources, not the popular press, and to consider sources like the AVMA "advocacy groups" that are trying to 'rebrand' the breed is not appropriate. PearlSt82 ( talk) 11:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The lead should serve as a summary of the article. The risk of these dogs is a prominent piece of this article, it is non-compliant with NPOV and MOS to omit this. Please spare us the tedious challenges to factual information. Cavalryman It is inappropriate for you to unilateral dictate what the article should cover, especially when that's inconsistent with how we structure articles. We base information on what's been heavily reported in RS. It is wholly appropriate to include a conglomeration of reputational, statistical, scientific, and lay information that has been reported in scientific sources. Your opinion about what the article should focus on (the dogs as pets, what good pets they are or are not) is not what we can allow to guide content, sorry. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 14:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
1) The "locking mechanism" or latching on while biting is discussed in several paragraphs in the article. Not every claim in the lead needs to be sourced (this one is) and the sources are provided later.
2) "Whataboutism" is not appropriate for an article. That's called WP:SYNTH. Sources say that pit bulls are responsible for hundreds of attacks a year and that they are disproportionate compared to other breeds. It's not our job to play funny with the stats or compare it to other breeds. The comparisons in RS describe the role of pit bulls as disproportionate.
3) The nature vs nurture debate is indeed significant both as a matter of public discourse. Studies linked with pro-pitbull advocacy organizations are accordingly given less weight.
4) Professionals giving their opinion and who are published in reliable sources is exactly what we rely on.
I would suggest you review the prior GA reviews, which this article failed, and take that feedback into account, because this merry-go-round of making arguments about pit bulls and why facts are 'unfair' is what was repeatedly brought up as a reason the article didn't meet GA criteria. Bias or advocacy in favor of pit bulls and these types of counter arguments (example: calling statistics about pit bull deaths/maulings "unclear" while also presenting a precise graph of how many occurred was criticized in the last GA review) are a roadblock to improving this article that have been raised by each of the prior GA reviewers. Let's be careful not to continue that trend. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 14:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
You need to support your arguments with sources or reference to sources used in the article. 1) Sources note that pit bulls have a reputation for a "locking" or latching bite. Comparisons to other dogs not mentioned in sources are WP:SYNTH. And, yet again, this is discussed extensively in the article. Please do not rehash the same points without acknowledging obvious counter arguments. 2) The source you mentioned clearly alludes to the fact that pit bull attacks, based on recorded statistics, are disproportionate; other sources state this explicitly. What they are offering are theories as to why, not disputing the basic facts. 3) There are numerous pro-pit bull advocacy organizations that either commission studies or are linked with veterinary professionals through funding/other activism work. If it's RS, these sources are acceptable, but such commentary should not be given disproportionate weight. Neutral, mathematical statistics are preferable where possible. 4) Where are official AVMA or CDC statements that are supposedly being outweighed by the opinions of "a single professional?"
Again, stop making arguments about what other breeds do or do not do without references to sources. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 15:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
PearlSt82 ( talk) 15:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
It isn't Wikipedia's job to report statisticsThis is a flat out wrong. This is like saying we don't include photos on Wikipedia. Statistics are secondary sources; they are compiled and assembled by researchers and then presented. Commentary on those statistics also requires a secondary source. No OR material is presented in the article.
Even national "expert organizations" are subject to bias, and the notion that we can make conclusions about vague notions of "dangerousness" by breed yet documenting bites and incidents per breed on an annual basis is inherently flawed is contradictory and ridiculous. Show me where any of these organizations directly dispute the disproportionate number of pit bull bites relative to population and number of dog bites recorded in general. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 17:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Been away from my computer for hours; just read this exchange; here are my comments/observations:
— Normal Op ( talk) 19:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
These are definitely primary studies - data from a single intake point. Regarding conclusions in the literature - I think it should be noted there are roughly two categories of academic/professional sources. The first, from veterinary/animal behaviorists, include numerous primary studies, and a few literature reviews and position statements. I have already posted many here, so there is no need to revisit them in detail - but the trend going through all of them is that they state that there are inherent difficulties in capturing reliable dog bite statistics, and that dog-human aggression is not breed related, but linked to other factors, especially in severe/fatal incidents. The second group of sources, includes several dozen primary studies from medical journals, of which you have posted a couple. These are almost always raw statistics and don't raise any of the concerns of the veterinary sources. Some of them (Bini and Cohn being one) will go as far to recommend legislation. As far as I know, there are no literature reviews or position statements coming from medical bodies in a similar fashion that there is with the veterinary sources. It is for these reasons - both that veterinary sources are closer professionally to the issues at hand (animal behavior, aggression), and they incorporate more secondary literature reviews and position statements, that I am suggesting they be given more weight than the primary medical studies and raw statistics. PearlSt82 ( talk) 23:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
For what it is worth, this is one of the most constructive debates I have ever had the pleasure to witness on a Wikipedia dog-related talk page. The focus on the issues - without personal remarks - by committed and articulate editors is a credit to all involved. William Harris talk 22:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The 17.6% comes from the Voith study "Comparison of Visual and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs and Inter-Observer Reliability" (2013) whose sampling of dogs was twenty (20). Twenty! None of the dogs were purebred; half of the dogs were a mixture of 4 to 6 dog breeds (per DNA testing); all dogs DNA-tested with no higher than 25% of any single breed (except for 1 which tested 50%/25%/other). The dogs were presented through media (not in person) to 900 persons who were queried with basically two questions: (1) "Do you think this dog is probably a purebred?" (Any response other than "No" was counted as a fail!), and (2) "What do you think is the most predominant breed (and second most predominant breed)"? I'm shocked that the hit-rate was as high as 17.6%. And this 'caca' has been promulgated as breed identification gospel ever since. Normal Op ( talk) 23:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Any idea why this other article Bull-type terriers exists? William Harris talk 09:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)