Talk:Pit bull/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2018

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)

 Done Graham87 01:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Comparing unrelated issues

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. SlightSmile 19:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The point the AMA reference is making us that the prevelance of Pitt bull types on lists of common types of dogs involved in attacks stems from the popularity and commonality of the type, not any inherent factor in the dog type. So in areas where other dog types are more common, other types appear higher on those lists. The sentence could possibly be rephrased for more clarity, but the comparison is valid. oknazevad (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless it remains misleading. The sled dog attacks were the result of the dangerous practice of letting dogs run around wild in packs and little or nothing to do with popularity of the breed. There is zero relevance between the sled dog attacks and the debates about the alleged aggressiveness of pit bulls. Please don't remove the accuracy tag simply because the material looks reasonable. SlightSmile 16:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree it is misleading. The claim "sled dog attacks were the result of the dangerous practice of letting dogs run around wild in packs and little or nothing to do with popularity of the breed" is not at all present in the source. The AVMA source does not comment on free-roaming dogs at all, but instead discusses popularity. This is the exact text from AVMA: If you consider only the much smaller number of cases that resulted in very severe injuries or fatalities,21,23 pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified. However this may relate to the popularity of the breed in the victim's community, reporting biases and the dog's treatment by its owner (e.g., use as fighting dogs21). It is worth noting that fatal dog attacks in some areas of Canada are attributed mainly to sled dogs and Siberian Huskies,56 presumably due to the regional prevalence of these breeds. This only talks about "regional prevalence", not free-roaming or feral dogs. It is not up to us to reinterpret what the AVMA says, but to report it. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It also might be worth noting that some primary studies, like this one note that the vast majority of pitbull fatalities and injuries come from free-roaming dogs. This is why its important we leave the analysis of primary materials to the experts like the AVMA. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Why are you in such a rush to remove the dispute tag? Give the readers a chance to see the discussion and decide for themselves. If I'm full of it and the AVMA are right the readers will see it, don't worry. Regardless please do not remove maintenance tags from Wikipedia articles, thank you. SlightSmile 21:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Tags with no validity can and must be removed. Adding a tag does not make it permanent. When a consensus editors disagrees with the tag there is no reason to leave it except an attempt to overrule consensus. You misread the source. It happens. Doesn't mean that your tag automatically stays forever. oknazevad (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay I'm done here. What would you say if some kid got mauled after reading articles on Wikipedia downplaying their ferociousness. SlightSmile 03:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Is say that pit bulls are no more inherently ferocious than any other dog, and that it's pretty obvious that your attempt to POV-push wasn't as well-hidden as you thought it was. oknazevad (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't talk. Your wiki lawyering, gaming the system. I'm sorry did I already use the word pseudo - your pseudo arguments above shows no good faith at all what so ever. Oh and you don't own this article. Somebody out there please tell me why the community is letting these people turn Wikipedia into platform for pit bull lobbyists. SlightSmile 21:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Accurately reporting what WP:RS like the AVMA publishes is not gaming the system. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Lede

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:

1. brief history from terriers
2. that the term 'pit bull' is not one breed but umbrella classification term (visual id can be worked in here)
3. prevalence in dogfighting
4. temperament studies
5. BSL/commercial restrictions
6. role in society from notable pitbulls section (ie - some used in film, some as working dogs, etc)

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)

Gove it a shot. You're right that per WP:LEADCITE the refs in the lead should actually be in the body, but considering the subject I'd expect there to be a lot of spurious tagging or unsourced changes if the cites aren't also called in the lead, so I wouldn't remove them outright. oknazevad (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Gave it a first stab, wording could probably be a little tighter. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I split the sentence about American Bulldogs being only sometimes included back off because it helps create the mental space among readers to head off the inevitable moving of the red to after that breed (their mention doesn't come from that ref but from the later refs on BSL), and because the phrasing with two "and"s was awkward. Could easily be a semicoloned clause instead. But outside that, I think it summarizes the article pretty well, while still fulfilling the lead's other purpose of giving a quick definition of the subject for those on mobile devices. oknazevad (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I did a bit more minor tweaking. Might be worthwhile copyediting the rest of the article at some point too. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Newish book on pit bulls

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:

1. Media reports regarding breed traditionally been inaccurate
2. Many medical journals that reference pit bulls were authored by physicans with no background in animal anatomy, health or behavior, prone to errors in methodology
3. Colleen Lynn and Merrit Clifton have no professional or academic experience in animal behavior, statistics and epidemology, Clifton intentionally misrepresents his academic credentials, and DogsBite.org and Clifton are given false balance by many media outlets as their opinion carrying the same weight as the CDC and AVMA

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)

Recent edits and reverts

You just don't let anybody edit here do you. OWN. SlightSmile 21:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome to discuss policy and sourcing based reasons why any recently reverted edits should stay in the article. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2018

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)

 Not done The evidence is already in the article, as sources clearly state that some authorities, including some forms of breed specific legislation, include the American bulldog as part of the regulations. Plus there's the history of the American bulldog as a formalization of existing lines that were found in the American south and other rural areas amongst farmers. To prove that they never included any terrier mixing would be to require me to disprove the negative, which is a logical fallacy. oknazevad (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

American English term

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).

You're misreading that first definition. It's saying the dog has an American origin, not that the term is only used in American English. The other definitions are about the APBT breed specifically, not the general type. I'm going to revert the addition as it's inaccurate. oknazevad (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Oknazevad, if the dictionary defines the term "pit bull" as the APBT, then that means the term is synonymous with the breed, not the dog type as described in the article. Happy to discuss the terminology, but the fact remains that the term "pit bull" is synonymous with the APBT outside of North America, and a definition for a term that is found only within North America would make that term American English. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Pitbull attack section grossly inaccurate

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)

Do you know what sources are? That's what we need, not your unsourced opinion. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Put up or shut up. You claim dozens of sources. Firstly, I doubt they rise to the level of reliable sources. But I'm willing to be surprised. List them here. Otherwise, take your bias and run along. Because it's obvious you have an axe to grind trying to reinforce nonsense. oknazevad (talk) 16:09, 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)

I have a degree in physics and have studied quantum physics and photonics. I understand statistics quite well, thank you very much. oknazevad (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The source used in this article does seem to hem and haw on this subject. It says they pit bulls are the source of more bites, then provides a list of excuses, and determines they aren't disproportionate risks. I would be interested in additional input. But, it would have to come from reliable secondary sources. O3000 (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The main source used in this article for this information is from the American Veterinary Medical Association which is a comprehensive literature review of 65 primary studies, coming from a reliable, academic, secondary source. WP:RS states: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." and "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content."PearlSt82 (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that this article reads exactly like the first comment said it does, "like a pitbull advocacy webpage." It certainly does not come close to the NPOV Wikipedia strives to maintain. For example, listing a review by the CDC that is nearly 20 years old is probably not the best source. Glaringly absent are FBI dog bite fatality statistics where pit bulls and hybrids account for at least 2/3 of all reported fatalities. While the FBI does admit that dog breeds are not readily identified, at least state it with the exception, not just state the exception. Additionally, comments from oknazevad like "Put up or shut up" are far below professional. I, too, have a physics degree. So what? Please elevate your commentary. Final point- while the vast majority of people willingly and laughingly accept certain breeds of dogs being more or less intelligent than others, emotions get very high when a statement on the dangerous tendancies of certain breeds over others are made. Several reports have noted the most common dog bites which hospitalize children are from miniature breeds. Pit bulls, rottweillers, German shepherds, etc., make up far fewer incidents but are much more likely to be fatal due to the great size and strength of the breeds. It's similar to how automobile accidents are far more likely in town but are far more likely to be deadly on the freeway due to speeds.Bristus (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources removed

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 and a 2016 study in Clinical Pediatrics 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)

These are all primary studies detailing intakes at individual trauma centers. Per WP:MEDRS we shouldn't be using such narrowly focused primary studies, especially to make such a broad statements as "they found that pit bulls were implicated in over half of all dog attacks that result in surgery" and "The study also states that pit bulls are over 2.5 times as likely as other breeds to bite multiple locations on the body". PearlSt82 (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've made edits to address your concerns. It no longer makes an overly-broad statement based on the findings. Anne drew (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you expanding the scope of the studies, but my concern is that the studies not be used at all. WP:MEDRS exists so that individual primary studies aren't given undue weight over secondary literature reviews. The AVMA review cites dozens of primary studies, states that breed is a poor sole predictor of dog bites and that controlled studies have not identified pit bulls as disproportionately dangerous. In a separate AVMA review, they determined that valid breed determination was possible for only 17.6% of cases. For these reasons, Wikipedia isn't to serve as a literature review of primary sources, but to report what secondary sources and literature reviews say. Adding two narrow primary studies at the same weight of the incredibly comprehensive AVMA and CDC is inappropriate for this kind of content. PearlSt82 (talk) 11:15, 30 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.
• WP:MEDRS is meant to discourage the use of primary studies for making bold claims about, for example, the efficacy of a medication or the causes of a disease. The example given is not to use in vitro studies because their results may not hold in clinical trials. A simple tally of the number of dog bites by pit bulls at two large institutions doesn't require the same level of validation by a literature review. Anne drew (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Its a bit more complicated than just a "simple tally of the number of dog bites by pit bulls at two large institutions". As noted in the article currently by the AVMA determined that valid breed determination was possible for only 17.6% of fatality cases, and visual identification of breed is incredibly inaccurate, even with trained animal professionals, which as plastic surgeons, the authors of these studies are not. Dog bite statisics by breed are incredibly inaccurate, and many dogs identified as pit bulls are misidentified. As such, the White House, Centers For Disease Control, American Veterinary Medical Association, American Bar Association, ASPCA, American Kennel Club, American Pet Dog Trainers Association, International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants, American Animal Hospital Association, do not track this information.

Neither of studies answer the qusetion "What proportion of dog bites are done by pit bulls?". At best, they answer the question "What proportion of dog bites are recorded in an individual trauma center that are identified as pit bulls?" These are only two very small datasets that cannot be extrapolated to a whole population, especially when there are other datasets like Castle Rock, CO indicate less incidents, or in Council Bluffs, IA where they enacted breed-specific legislation, overall dog bites went up eight years after the pitbull ban, and in other places in Nebraska pit bulls don't make the top 5 of biting breeds. There are countless data points like these we could be bringing into this article for different angles on this stat, but it would be inappropriate to do so. We need to stick to WP:MEDRS and let the professional organizations like the AVMA and CDC digest this information for us.

When the CDC finds "it’s virtually impossible to calculate bite rates for specific breeds", we should really trust the expert organizations and not be posting and interpreting the findings of primary studies ourselves. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Any further discussion here? If not, I'll replace the primary studies with the sources above stating that dog bite incidence by breed is not tracked by major animal welfare organisations and that the CDC states it is nearly impossible to do so. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@PearlSt82:: You have added (and re-added after challenge) a HuffPost opinion piece by a self-described pit bull advocate and co-founder of a related PAC. I don't see how this is an acceptable RS for facts. WP:BRD WP:RS O3000 (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Its not an opinion that the CDC, AVMA and ASPCA don't track dog bites by breed. The State Farm insurance spokeswoman is a direct quote - I'm not bringing in any of the opinion based stuff from the article. I'll cite directly from the orgs themselves. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The only thing now sourced to Huffpo is the direct quote from the State Farm insurance spokeswoman. Feel free to remove if you feel its undue. The important part of this is noting that this information is not tracked by the CDC, AVMA or ASPCA because all of these organizations note that such a statistic is inherently unreliable. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2019

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)

 Not done: Keep reading. While the source does seem to go back and forth a bit, the information in the article is directly supported by the section discussing pit bull types. I will also note that this source has been discussed previously (further up the page) - I would probably need to see a consensus to make any changes to this. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

i have no horse in this race but it's hilarious looking at how PearlSt82 has manipulated this page

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)

Articles are to reflect what reliable secondary sources say about a subject, not act as a compendium of every primary study or media report on the subject. See WP:MEDPRI: " Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources. " PearlSt82 (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

the weighted studies outweigh your primary study

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)

The two studies you have added are primary studies. The source for information regarding statistics currently in the article are literature reviews and secondary studies by the AVMA and CDC. Individual primary studies should not be added to counter secondary reviews. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:39, 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)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Separate headers are unneeded. Pearl's edits are fully in line with WP:MEDRS, a Wikipedia-wide guideline with broad consensus intended to prevent incorrect or biased reading if primary studies. And dogsbite.org is well-known for it's pseudoscientific, counterfactual biases and misrepresentations. The warnings there are meaningless. oknazevad (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, that user was topic banned for their conduct at the Dogsbite.org article, among other things, and their warnings as such should probably be taken as a grain of salt. PearlSt82 (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

breed-specific legislation wikipedia page information incoporation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation

some more info on pitbulls here

Information on BSL should be incorporated in the BSL article, not the pit bull article per WP:CONTENTFORK. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

skeptical

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)

Per WP:MEDRS, claims on statistics and epidemiology need to come from secondary sources. This falls under WP:MEDRS because you are using two medical journals, Clinical Pediatrics and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery to make statistical and epidemiological claims about veterinary science (animal behavior - how frequently pit bulls bite, and animal anatomy - how severely), which falls under WP:Biomedical information. Information on legislation should fall go in the Breed-specific legislation article to avoid WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:COATRACK. PearlSt82 (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to claim that journals are primary sources. Journal articles are secondary sources per definition. -- 131.130.130.88 (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

No, medical (and other scientific) journals publish the original peer-reviewed papers of the researchers. The authors are the source of the info they contain, and therefore they are defined as primary sources. oknazevad (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Pit bull definition

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)

• American Kennel Club: Why Breed Bans Affect You (https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/news/breed-bans-affect/)
• American Dog Breeders Association: Breed Reclassification, stud book corrections (https://adbadog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Breed_Reclassification.pdf)
• Diane Jessup's Official Information Site: Pit Bull history (https://www.workingpitbull.com/history.htm)
• AKC cites the American Pit Bull Terrier - video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yOktUDGhjY)

One more question: Have the other old topics on this talk page been deleted? Adventurous36 (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

To they latter question, they have been archived, links to which can be found above at the top of the page. As t the more general question about pit bulls as a type vs the specific recognized breeds, there's definitely a need for a separate article because the real world deals with such. Even dog ownership books lump them together. Kennel clubs have their specific guidelines, but they're only a small portion of dog owners and registered dogs only a small portion of the dog population, so we shouldn't give them the final say in more general articles like this. oknazevad (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. Adventurous36 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Main image

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)

• 
  Suggested image 1
• 
  Suggested image 2
• 
  Suggested image 3

When I put together the collage used as the current lead image, my intention was to show the digs in relatively the same poses to highlight the similarities while also showing the differences. I also wanted to make sure the dogs were clearly visible against their backgrounds, which were chosen to be fairly neutral and unobtrusive. Finally, full body images were chosen because the whole dog should be visible. To that end, your third suggestion is a no go, as it doesn't show full dogs. The other two are okay, but the backgrounds are somewhat distracting, especially on the image of the staffy on the bottom left (that's just not a very good image, as there's too many flash artifacts). Now maybe it's because I put together the current lead image from images found on commons, but I feel it does a better job of showing the four breeds.oknazevad (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2020

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2020

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)

Recent primary source additions

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)

Additionally, stop adding multiple versions of the same source as though they were separate sources as an attempt to bolster the argument. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:29, 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

The psychology today and livescience articles are opinion pieces, which are not peer reviewed secondary sources like literature reviews. The Philadelphia trauma center source is a primary study, no matter how many times you add it. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The examples and citations in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

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)

You can! See WP:TUTORIAL and get into it! One reason could be that the topic of this article is mostly an American "thing", I note that there are no French or German versions of this article, the closest I found was [1][2]. You can try checking the other language WP-articles (there are several) for WP:RS, and if you find anything good, you can use it here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia literally states that primary sources can be used and aren't inherently bad

"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.

Yes, primary sources can be used for some kinds of information, but not for epidemiological or statistical claims from medical sources. See WP:MEDRS. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#:~:text=Primary%20sources%20should%20be%20used%20carefully,-Material%20based%20on&text=However%2C%20primary%20sources%20may%20only,directly%20supported%20by%20the%20source.

Primary sources are not banned by Wikipedia

WP:MEDRS oknazevad (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Menacinghat:, stop edit warring these changes in. Opinion pieces are never appropriate for statistics and you're at four reverts. See WP:3RR. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@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)

There is still no consensus for these changes per my comments and @Oknazevad:'s. Stop edit warring these in without consensus. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Pitbull introduction

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?

No. The lede is supposed to summarize the article, and this is a large portion of the article. Stop edit warring these changes in without consensus. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

ADL source

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)

Additionally, if you look at other symbols noted as hate symbols like the Celtic cross, there are multiple references establishing it as such, reported independently from the ADL. There doesn't seem to be any other sources making this connection other than the ADL - which should speak to points of WP:UNDUE. I would suggest this be removed unless sourcing is better. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

If anyone has access to this source [3] it could be useful. IMO, the current use of the ADL source (i wrote it) is at least accurate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have access to this source. 50%+ is dedicated to the Michael Vick case, and uses that as a framework to discuss racial connotations of crime and perceived criminality. A summary of the points raised in the article that could be relevant to this one are as follows:

• mentions juxtaposition of popular image of pit bulls as both victims (of dogfighting) and perpetrators of violence
• pit bulls/fighting dogs routinely euthanised, especially those confiscated from fighting rings, or suspected being in fighting rings
• media sensationalises pit bulls as "killing machine" and "time bomb on legs"
• discusses how "pit bull" is umbrella term and not a breed
• defines what a BSL ordinance is
• idea of breed-specific danger is relatively recent, as recent as the 1980s
• in 1980s pit bull attacks connected to gang violence, and thus carried public image of criminality
• associated with the hip-hop community, and with it the racist associations that white audiences viewed them
• French BSL law and dangerous dogs discussion surrounded by culture of "urban ghettos" and "Afro-American lifestyles" from the United States being exported abroad
• discussion of breed being a social construct - human definition applied to somewhat arbitrary characteristics of an animal
• reiterates pit bull is not a breed but a "breed type"
• discusses media portrayal of pit bull owners as "sociopathic deviants"
• discusses how study shows owners misrepresenting breed of dog to avoid stigma of pit bull ownership
• discusses feedback loop between "pit bulls, blackness, and the perception of criminality"
• frames BSL as proxy legislation against people they would like to, but cannot legistlate against
• goes further and says that like in critical race theory, scientific discussions of race will not sway racist thinking, makes connection to this and ideas of dog heredity and breed
• direct comparison of dangerous dogs to Charles Mills quote on race "You are what you are in part because you originate from a certain kind of space, and that space has those properties in part because it is inhabited by creatures like yourself"

PearlSt82 (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Breed-specific legislation in intro about pitbull dog

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)

Read WP:LEDE. The purpose of the lede is to summarize the contents of the article. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the legal status of this animal in the United States and internationally is absolutely relevant to the lead, and comprises a major section of the article. They are extensively discussed in RS as well. Please see MOS:LEAD and WP:DUE before raising questions about relevance, particularly for content that is clearly pertinent to the topic which are "pit bull type dogs." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Nipper should not be listed in 'Notable pit bulls' section

@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)

Agreed, guessing modern pedigree for a 100+ year old dog is a futile exercise, especially such a vaguely defined umbrella term as "pit bull". Would Nipper be labelled as a pit bull if it got taken in a random shelter today? Maybe, but that isn't what can be reliably ascribed to sources. PearlSt82 (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can guess, but if decent WP:RS guess, WP can use it. The tag is fine. Contradictions between WP-articles can be solved (or not, per WP:OTHER) depending on what's in sources. IMO, this dog is so iconic ("only been memorialized in a painting"? Even I recognized that image[4]) he deserves a mention in the section based on the refs I used (compared to other stuff in this section, they're quite good refs). In WP-speech, the refs make it WP:DUE/WP:BALASP for the section. The oldest is from 1997, so this idea has been around awhile. Text under discussion:

Nipper, a mongrel at times seen as a pit bull, is the dog in Francis Barraud's painting His Master's Voice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Now add the complicating factor - artistic license: what he was looking at may not necessarily be what he painted, so the sources may be guessing as to the breed or cross-breed. William Harristalk 11:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS can guess all they want. If they guess based on photos of paintings or something else, we can only guess. To add to license, the dog was three years dead when the painting was made. Perhaps he was black with white ears. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW, at times seen as a pit bull and He was likely a mixed-breed dog, although most early sources suggest that he was a Smooth Fox Terrier, or perhaps a Jack Russell Terrier,[2][3][4] or possibly "part Bull Terrier".[5][6] is not contradictory, is it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I think main issue is that no one was using the term "pit bull" 100+ years ago, and the "bull terrier" of the late 19th century isn't the same bull terrier of today. Pedigree history is complicated and muddled by sources with commercial interest. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO, not much of an issue for including the above text. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support removal, according to Merriam Webster the term "pit bull" was first used in 1927 so the classification is at best retrospective, further both sources cited make only single fleeting mentions. I definitely think the image should be the removed as it makes this the most prominent mention in the section, the link is tenuous at best.

I would support any proposal to remove the entire section, pit bull is a vaguely defined term and the first paragraph is a collection of uncited OR, statements attributed to unreliable sources, references more specifically describing American Pit Bull Terriers and a number sources that do not even use the words pit bull, in the second paragraph Popsicle and Lilly are the only two exceptions to the above description. Cavalryman (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC).

At least some of the sources do appear crappy, this is often the case with "pop-cult" sections. Hopefully good sources can be found for some of the "notables", the rest can be weeded. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is rated Importance=High on the WP:DOGS scale, yet the lede sourcing is appalling. The article lede appears to rest on the view of the American Veterinary Medical Association - who have expertise in performing veterinary surgery but not on dog breeds and breeding - and some suspect newspaper reports. William Harristalk 10:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

This is largely due to a couple issues - the first being that "pit bull" is often used a catch-all umbrella term and not a pedigree, and that most of the press focuses on breed aggression and legislation. More tangible information about breed and pedigree should probably fall under articles about the individual breeds like Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Likewise, the article attracts a lot of POV pushing, trying to insert single primary studies that claim pit bulls are the most dangerous dog, to counter high level secondary sources like the AVMA who note that controlled studies do not show pit bulls to be disproportionately dangerous and that breed is not a factor in dog bite related fatalities. Certainly there is a lot more room for things to be fleshed out beyond the controversial issues - things like type and pedigree history - if you have good sources covering this angle, please post. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I at least think the source @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: posted above could be used to, either here, or at the Breed-specific legislation article, flesh out some of the history, the origins of BSL and the popular conscious link between the dog and criminality. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon could also be a good source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I've done some weeding and added/changed some refs in the first paragraph. IMO, the first paragraph is now in fairly decent shape. ...apart from "Pit bull breeds have acted as war dogs, police dogs, search and rescue dogs, actors, television personalities, seeing eye dogs, and celebrity pets." which is at least partly uncited. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment' - Nipper looks very much like this dog, which is a fox terrier: File:Old Jock.jpg William Harristalk 08:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Old Jock was a nice find, William Harris. He's a classic. Normal Op (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Dogs in this section should preferably have a decent ref that says "Yup, that's a pit bull". But what of refs that doesn't actually say pit bull, like Roosevelt’s bull terrier named Pete? What types should be "allowed"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki policy is pretty clear. No OR, no SYNTH, you need a reliable source. Normal Op (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

So, weed anything that doesn't actually say "pit bull"? Like American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Facepalm... You weed out every "historical dog" where there are no contemporaneous records about its breed heritage, because you get all manner of people guessing "what was", and no one is an expert on something they weren't there for and have no records to evaluate. It's all guessing. Try as you might, I'm not going to discuss "pit bull, definition of". My point has always been that Nipper, and several other of the historical dogs, have no record of their breed, and some don't even have photographs (like Nipper doesn't). Content in a Wikipedia article should describe or illustrate the subject of its title to educate a reader. Suppositions have no place in an encyclopedia. It doesn't serve the reader, and it doesn't serve the subject. Normal Op (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Facepalm all you want, I'm asking because I'm considering looking for sources for this section, and I'm after some guidance what I should look for. And my point remains that WP:RS can guess and suppose all they want, they can still be useful content, contemporary or not. I don't care about Pete the Pup's breed heritage, for the purpose of this section I care if there is a decent WP:RS that says he (well, the actors who played him) was a pit bull. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I think RS should explicitly describe the dog either as a "pit bull" or one of the umbrella breeds mentioned. (APBT, etc). "Bull terrier" typically is not considered a pit bull, but as noted, breed history can be complicated, especially dealing with dogs from the late 19th century. With that said, I think many of the dogs here are not notable, but rather, owned by notable people. Daddy (dog) is clearly notable - are the others? PearlSt82 (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Thank you, sounds reasonable. As for the WP:PROPORTION thing, I'd generally consider something like the TR source good enough for a mention in a section such as this (even if Pete doesn't belong here). There may be better/more sources about Pete, but I think it's adequate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, as has been discussed elsewhere, “pit bull” as a type of dog is a classification only used in the North America and the terminology is completely inappropriate when discussing non-American breeds when outside the US, I think if there is a source that describes a dog as a specific breed it belongs there. More broadly, these sections tend to contradict WP:TRIVIA, none of our other dog type pages have such sections, I am now more firmly of the view that the entire section should be removed. Cavalryman (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC).

I agree that this is a North American term, and despite its occasional use in the media of other English-speaking countries for sensational purposes, the term is not recognised other than being short for the APBT. (NB: There are 60 people currently watching these recent edits to the Talk page, so the subject is topical.) William Harristalk 04:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, Cocker Spaniel and Welsh Corgi have similar sections. Comparing with other articles is WP:OTHER in any case, which doesn't make it invalid. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Style question: should the dog names have quotation marks? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Tige should not be listed in 'Notable pit bulls' section

1923

1903

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)

The bulldog was my mistake, removed it. I assert that there are good enough sources for this section that says this 2D is a pit bull (I'm counting APBT for that here per above), and on WP, that is what counts. If you want to add him to Bulldog, that could work too. Next on the program: Sallie Ann Jarrett.

Sallie Ann Jarrett, Civil War mascot.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I also assert that "I assert that none of the citations used knows what Tige was." is WP:OR. Pit bull is in the eye of the beholder. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

See also Talk:Buster Brown/Archives/2020#Breed of Tige. Normal Op (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

"What advocates call breed-specific legislation"

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)

That line is referring to what are called "preemption laws", right? ("A number of states in the United States have banned what advocates call breed-specific legislation") — Normal Op (talk) 10:04, 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)

Yes, and right now, the lede reads "A number of states in the United States have banned what advocates call breed-specific legislation, or legislation against pit bulls" - there is no sourcing for the idea that BSL is an "advocate" term. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Link for documentary describing how the term "BSL" was popularized by advocates. It suggests that legislation against pit bulls is over-broad or more far-reaching than it is. It also seems to have some connotation of "discrimination," as if animals can be likened to people. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

A sensationalist tv show is hardly a reliable source, especially for such a claim in the lede. Breed-specific legislation is absolutely the common term for such laws, per WP:COMMONNAME, and it is how it is referred to by its proponents. I don't see how this is at all controversial? PearlSt82 (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Is "sensationalist" a label for any documentary or piece of journalism on television? It's from one of the investigative arms of CBC News. I think that we should be cautious using this term. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:03, 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)

Sourcing is not there for "pit bull lobby", unless you can present something beyond the Dickey book which mentions it in a dismissive conspiratorial tone. I know you have indicated that you feel the Dickey book is not RS, but I suspect others would disagree, and at the very least something with equal weight needs to be posted for confirmation/use of this language. Otherwise it has NPOV/OR all over it. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

There is undoubtedly a lobbying effort underway for pitbulls, whether or not it is called the "Pit bull lobby." The lead notes this, and sources it to the NYT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead is WP:UNDUE and inaccurate. The NYT article cited is incredibly brief and discusses only The Dodo series "Pittie Nation" and the personal advocacy of stand-up comedian Rebecca Corry. The two sources cited in the body for any kind of 'rebranding effort' are an effort undertaken by San Francisco in 1997 and one in New York in 2004, both of which are described as sources as incredibly short-lived. This can hardly be described as an 'intense "rebranding" effort', and as such reads inaccurate NPOV language. The lede is to serve as a summary of the most important parts of the body of the article, and this element is a such a minor point that it is UNDUE for the lede. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

And looking at the 2004 effort closer, the proposal was instantly shot down by the director of NYC animal control - so what you have is one brief effort in SF in 1997, one failed effort in NYC in 2004, a series by the Dodo and personal activism of a stand-up comedian. This is absolutely WP:UNDUE for the lede, especially as written as an "intense" rebranding effort. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, a google search for the terms "pit bull lobby" brings up a bunch of conspiratorial-minded sites like this one. Nothing that remotely reaches the level of RS in the first four pages of results. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Citywatchla and Forbes contributor pieces

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)

CityWatchLA does indeed have information about their organization, on their About page, which I found as the second result from googling "what is citywatchla.com". Normal Op (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for this, for some reason they do not link to this page on their home page, or at least, I was unable to find it. It appears to be a web-only news outlet with a small reach, and doesn't meet WP:NEWSORG, especially for statements of fact. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't call those numbers "small" (90,000+ opt-in subscribers, 610,457 hits per day and 65,000 page views per day), and I'm not sure 'size matters' for RS anyway. Editorial oversight, expertise, professionalism, etc. would count more than size. It wouldn't purport to compete with "national" organizations and since it is local/regional its numbers would ordinarily be smaller than a national operation. Normal Op (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

There's more info on their Contact us page. Normal Op (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

From that page "CityWatchLA is an opinion publication based on the opinions of its writers and contributors. " - I think this pretty much seals it as non-RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Articles mentioning "pit bull lobby"

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)

Newspapers

These are articles that do NOT indicate they are opinion pieces, etc.

1. westword.com (2020) Westword, a Denver paper // term used by Denver Councilwoman in a quote to the paper: "Our office has received plenty of what I would deem to be inappropriate outreach from both sides of the pit bull lobby this week," Sawyer divulged in another message. "And none of it sways me either way. As I have said, the only thing that would change my vote would be a change in facts."
2. pilotonline.com (2017) The Virginian-Pilot, a newspaper // "I know, I know, the pit bull lobby will blame the breeder, the shelter, the owners, the dead woman." // "Don't let the pugnacious pit bull lobby tell you nothing can be done."
3. citywatchla.com (2018) A Los Angeles newspaper // Refers to BFAS's lobbying
4. citywatchla.com (2018) // "Since the Michael Vick dog fighting arrest, the Pit Bull lobby is insisting it is the ideal pet and "nanny dog," ignoring increasing reports of maiming and killing humans, including helpless infants."
5. theprovince.com (2015) The Province, a Canadian paper // Uses the phrase "camp": "The multimillion-dollar-funded pit bull advocacy camp is very efficient. As soon as an article or interview perceived to be maligning the reputation of the pit bull has been posted to the internet, the troops are gathered to launch their assault. Nancy Grace, Judge Judy, Dr. Laura and many radio hosts, journalists and TV personalities have experienced it first hand."
6. heavy.com (2017) online news // "Kelley examines both sides of the pit bull “debate” and also speaks extensively with Daxton’s babysitter, Susan Iwicki, as well as a legislative attorney and pit bull lobbyist for Best Friends Animal Society, Ledy VanKavage."
7. theprovince.com (2015) // "and that is the fault of the unscrupulous pit bull lobby promoting them as safe family pets when they are not" // "It’s time we stop being intimidated by this vocal minority and the multimillion-dollar funded pit bull lobby group and start demanding public safety."
8. theprovince.com (2016) // "This claim, along with loads of others presented by the influential pit bull lobby, is a complete lie. " // "In the eight years since the pit bull lobby ramped up their promotion and propaganda of the “misunderstood breed,” there’s been an 830 per cent increase in disfiguring and fatal attacks on humans in the U.S. and Canada. In 2007, there were 78 attacks. In 2015, there were 648."
9. huffingtonpost.ca (2016) by Associate News Editor, Trends and Traffic, The Huffington Post Canada // "Politicians shouldn't wait. Because if they do, adults and children will keep being attacked in their homes and elsewhere. And the pit bull lobby, so desperate to keep the public on side, will fiddle as they bleed." // "People are a tough sell on the idea of a pit bull ban because of a powerful lobby that is intent on misleading the public and verbally mauling anyone who would dare raise the prospect of one. It's a loose coalition of official organizations and pit bull lovers intent on harassing people out of their opinions on social media." // "It's a lobby that misleads people with cute photos of friendly pit bulls and tall tales of the dogs serving as nannies to children." // "And the pit bull lobby, so desperate to keep the public on side, will fiddle as they bleed."
10. theprovince.com (2016) // "The emails from Mimidis were full of myths promoted by the well funded pit bull lobby "
11. montrealgazette.com (2018) Montreal Gazette, Canadian newspaper // "The father of Vanessa Biron, who was disfigured by a dog in a park in Brossard in 2015, appeared, urging MNAs not to cave in to pressure from the pit bull lobby whom he compared to the NRA in the United States, which defends Americans’ right to carry guns."
12. sfgate.com (2005) San Francisco Chronicle // "Strain is now a member of the increasingly vocal pro-pit bull lobby. Groups have formed locally and nationally to help shuttle dogs out of Denver, provide housing outside city limits, and wage legal and political battle against existing and proposed bans." // "The anti-breed specific legislation lobby inundated her office with more opposition letters and phone calls than on any other issue in her 17 years of public service. Most were from outside her district."
13. theprovince.com (2015) The Province // "The additional fatal pit bull attack of Rebecca the very next day was damaging to the agenda of the well-funded pit bull lobby. Many questions are being asked by the public: Why the suicide ruling? What was the role of the pit bull lobbyists?"

Opinion pieces, editorials, letters to the editor

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.

1. starherald.net (2019) a letter to the editor // Uses the word "lobby" 10 times and delineates several organizations and activities // "this group of dedicated individuals opposed to BSLs is known as the “American Pit Bull Lobby.” " // Their tactics though have been likened to the tactics of Big Tobacco, for example, buying their own research studies, never admitting the truth, hiring PR firms, and distorting science.
2. nationalpost.com (2017) Opinion piece on National Post, a Canadian newspaper // Headline: "Barbara Kay: Pit bull lobby put on its heels by Quebec's dangerous dog bill, CBC documentary" // A passionate, year-long public debate ensued, featuring intense lobbying of Quebec politicians by U.S. pit bull advocates opposed to breed specific legislation (BSL). // "Other documentaries on pit bulls exist, but most are propaganda from the pit bull advocacy pipeline, for my BSL camp is David to the pit bull lobby’s Goliath, the canine equivalent of the NRA." // "Mild-mannered Fifth Estate host Mark Kelley found his in conversation with Ledy VanKavage, hired lobbyist for the pit bull advocacy group, Best Friends Animal Society. Kelley asks VanKavage: “Why do [pit bulls] need a lobby?” // "given the constellation of features that are so damning to the pit bull lobby’s reflexive catechism of excuses" // "VanKavage — you can see the light dawning — realizes she has inadvertently given her lobby’s game away. "
3. thetimeherald.com (2015) Opinion piece by a syndicated columnist on Michigan's The Times Herald // "It’s time we stop being intimidated by this vocal minority and the multimillion-dollar funded pit bull lobby group and start demanding public safety." // "More than 3,000 unwanted pit bulls are euthanized daily in shelters across the U.S. and Canada due to rampant overbreeding, and that is the fault of the unscrupulous pit bull lobby promoting them as safe family pets when they are not. One in 107 fatally attack an animal and one in 6,000 attack a human."
4. modbee.com Editorial on The Modesto Bee // "Should we have the right to protect ourselves from vicious dogs? Or do we just roll over, play dead and refuse to speak up because the misguided pit bull lobby makes a lot of noise?"
5. theprovince.com (2016) Opinion piece // "Best Friends Animal Society, a pit bull lobby group earning more than $65 million a year, quickly jumped on board and began to build their industry." // "Vancouver had restrictions on pit bull type dogs until 2005, when lobbyists convinced city council to treat pit bulls the same as any other dogs." // "Despite the vociferous efforts of the four per cent of dog owners protesting BSL in a few cities, and the millions of dollars behind the pit bull lobby movement, the controversy over breed legislation in Canada is at least helping to raise the visibility of ongoing attacks."
6. thetyee.ca (2015) Opinion piece on The Tyee // A quote from Mia Johnson “In the last three years, an additional 160 cities in the United States adopted BSL policies to protect their citizens from pit bulls. This was despite the fact that Best Friends Animal Society, the largest American pit bull lobby group who earned $66.6 million dollars in 2014 relentlessly campaigned against BSL during this time.”

Advocacy publications

Undoubtedly, the term "pit bull lobby" was coined by those engaged in opposing lobbying efforts that are pro-pit bull.

1. rc4ps.org Responsible Citizens for Public Safety, an advocacy organization // Defines the term in great detail
2. animals24-7.org (2017) // "The focal question, asked repeatedly by Kelley of Best Friends Animal Society pit bull lobbyist Ledy van Kavage, is “Why do pit bulls need lobbying? Why do they need an organization? Why do they need a network fighting for them?”" // "and the rest of the pit bull lobby bag of tricks"

— Normal Op (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for those sources, Normal Op. A lot of them at best are RS for only author's own opinion, as they are mostly opinion pieces, or at least having the term filtered through quotes, and many of these are not reliable at all - heavy.com has consensus at RSN for being unreliable, HuffPo blogs are not considered reliable, The Province is a tabloid and not reliable, etc. As you say - the term is almost entirely used by organizations and people that oppose pro-pit bull positions, or advocate for breed-specific legislation. Without specific wording proposed to add to the article, I'm not sure there is anything that can be done with this information. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes to lede

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:

• how severely a dog bites (veterinary anatomy)
• how often or likely a dog tends to bite (animal behavior)

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)

Hello PearlSt82, to address your two points

1. the removed paragraph was a quote from the AVMA about their perception of a stigma attached to owners of these dogs, this is an article about the dogs not their owners and so I do not believe it belongs in the lead
2. I support removing this content

Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC).

Thanks Cavalryman, that makes sense. However, dog bite risk/attack is a major part of the article, and is what is going to be drawing many people to the article, so I think the lede should say something about it, even if not incorporating the AVMA cite. Many of these medical cites can be expanded. For instance, Duffy, DL., Hsu, Y. Serpell, JA. Breed differences in canine aggression. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2008;114:441–460. is currently cited in the article, but for only the sentence "The interpretation of these studies, breed identification and relevance", which says nearly nothing. The article goes quite in depth and arrives at several conclusions, but the data does not show that pit bulls bite humans disproportionately more. Something like this summing up the consensus of veterinary sources regarding behavior should appear in the lede. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

More specifically from this article - "Some breeds scored higher than average for aggression directed toward bothhumans and dogs (e.g., Chihuahuas and Dachshunds) while other breeds scored high only for specific targets(e.g., dog-directed aggression among Akitas and Pit Bull Terriers). ", "The relatively average C-BARQ scores for stranger-directed aggression found among Pit Bull Terriers (Fig. 3A) were inconsistent with their universal reputation as a ‘dangerous breed’ and their reported involvement in dog bite-related fatalities (Sacks et al., 1996). In our survey, nearly 7% of Pit Bull owners indicated that their dogs had bitten or attempted to bite an unfamiliar person in the recent past, somewhat higher than the overall average (4.7%), while 22% reported bites directed at other dogs. This pattern is consistent with the view that this breed has been selectively bred for aggression toward other dogs rather than humans (Lockwood, 1995).", and "In general, we found higher levels of aggression directed toward unfamiliar dogs compared to unfamiliar people (parts A and C in Figs. 1 and 3); however, this pattern was highly breed-specific. Dachshunds, for example, showed similar levels of aggression to both dogs and humans (parts A and C in Figs. 1 and 3) while Akitas, Jack Russell Terriers and Pit Bull Terriers showed substantially greater aggression toward dogs (Fig. 3A and C)" - in short, pit bulls seem to be around average tendency to bite people compared with other breeds, and higher tendency to bite other dogs, especially unfamiliar dogs, possibly due to their lineage as dog fighting dogs. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

And of course, many of these sources are around 10 years old at this point, so it might be worthwhile to look at recently published literature in these fields. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The study "Highly heritable and functionally relevant breed differences in dog behaviour" also shows data that pit bull breeds (here American Staffordshire Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier - might also speak to international issues) have average to below average tendencies towards human aggression but higher tendencies towards dog aggression. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to additions to the lead, but I am at a loss as to what that should be, my reading of the Dog attack risk section is it is a collection of random information drawn from a serious of papers that is presented in a completely haphazard manner with very few linkages to the topic of the article, the section title is probably the best linkage. Regards Cavalryman (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC).

Do you have suggestions on cleaning up that section? IMO the sourcing is there but I agree could be more concise with prose and directly tying it to the article subject. Its also the POV magnet of the article that I've tried to clean up by dropping old primary studies in favor of recent secondary scholarship - but different sets of eyes smoothing this out would be greatly appreciated. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a better question - would Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon be appropriate to rely on heavily on this section as a frame of the "dangerous dog" debate, the nature of the controversy, and history behind it? If people have no objections, I can try to put together a proposed rewrite over the next few days of this section. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

PearlSt82, I thought I would respond up here to maintain the flow of the conversation. It is my opinion that the Pit bull#Dog attack risk section presents a series of arguments against no proposition; it needs to lead with something about reports of increased risks of attacks by pit bull-type dogs (in the media or where ever) before presenting all of the academic studies on the subject, otherwise it is just a random assortment of findings into nothing. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC).

Thanks Cavalryman, that makes sense. Over the next week or so I'll try to put together a draft rewrite of this section that opens up with context, history and an explanation of the controversy. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:42, 19 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)

I agree the dog attack risk section should be in the lede, but not as its being represented currently. There are many issues with these statements. Going one by one:

1. "the dog's proclivity to latching on while biting" - not in source cited, also not unique to pitbulls
2. "Each year, pit bulls are responsible for hundreds of bites on humans or attacks on other animals" - this is true for every dog breed and not unique to pit bulls
3. "There is a significant public and scholarly nature versus nurture debate over whether apparent apparent aggressive tendencies in pit bulls may be appropriately attributed to owners' care for the dog or inherent aggression" - misrepresentation of source - does not at all comment on any scholarly debate of nature vs nuture, but is just one professional dog training giving their opinion. There does not seem to be a debate in the scholarly community, especially if you are looking at sources like AVMA, Sacks, Duffy, etc, all seem to be consistent on that breed is a poor predicator of dog bite related fatalities, and that pit bulls bite on average roughly the same as other breeds. This is ironically bolstered by the Geographic source you posted, where one of the first things stated is "The first thing I did when I was consulting this book is reach out to the experts in the animal sciences to talk about what’s going on with these incidents and how best to prevent them. Fatalities are incredibly rare. In the U.S., we have 320 million people and between 77 and 83 million dogs. So your chance of being killed by any type of dog in the U.S. in any given year is one in 10 million"
4. "a practice that has continued despite being outlawed" - this is true for all forms of crime
5. "Numerous advocacy organizations have sprung up in defense of the breed, and the pit bull has been the focus of an intense "rebranding" effort in recent years to erase the stigma associated with the breed." - undue for lead and has the air of painting AVMA, ASPCA works as pr-efforts.
6. "Advocates dispute that the breed is intrinsically dangerous" - this is not the opinion of "advocates", but the AVMA, CDC, ASPCA and other professional organizations

As such, I feel these are inappropriate additions for the lede. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to get baited into a debate about pit bulls, because that's what you're doing (I say this respectfully, this is not appropriate per WP:FORUM). You are making counter arguments to what reliable sources have offered, not disputing that these are factually accurate and heavily reported on.

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)

These are not WP:FORUM arguments, but rather dealing with actionable changes in the article, and why I'm disputing these additions. Responding,

1. The article says "Pit bull-type dogs, like other terriers, hunting and bull-baiting breeds, can exhibit a bite, hold, and shake behavior and at times refuse to release" - again, this is not a behavior unique to pitbulls and not due for the lede
2. Sources do not say they are disproportionate compared to other breeds. From the AVMA literature review: "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. However this may relate to the popularity of the breed in the victim's community, reporting biases and the dog's treatment by its owner (e.g., use as fighting dogs21). It is worth noting that fatal dog attacks in some areas of Canada are attributed mainly to sled dogs and Siberian Huskies,56 presumably due to the regional prevalence of these breeds. See Table 1 for a summary of breed data related to bite injuries." and "Owners of pit bull-type dogs deal with a strong breed stigma,44 however controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous."
3. Again, these are not pro-pitbull advocacy organizations. They are veterinary professionals
4. A single professional shouldn't outweigh entire organizations like the AVMA and CDCPearlSt82 (talk) 15:08, 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)

1. For the locking jaws section, sourcing is incredibly poor. dogsbite.org and a 35 year old sports illustrated article are not RS, the ASPCA source says nothing about their jaws, and the "Pit bulls for dummies" book as cited, explicitly says that locking jaws are a myth. Most of this section in the article can be removed.
2. It isn't wikipedia's job to report statistics - we report on secondary sources who analyze statistics, especially when bite statistics are notably problematic
3. Again, AVMA is not a pro-pit bull advocacy organization
4. AVMA sources are:

• https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/literature-reviews/dog-bite-risk-and-prevention-role-breed (Owners of pit bull-type dogs deal with a strong breed stigma,44 however controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous. The pit bull type is particularly ambiguous as a "breed" encompassing a range of pedigree breeds, informal types and appearances that cannot be reliably identified. Visual determination of dog breed is known to not always be reliable.45 And witnesses may be predisposed to assume that a vicious dog is of this type.)
• https://www.avma.org/resources/pet-owners/why-breed-specific-legislation-not-answer (It is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds because the data reported is often unreliable.) and (Breed popularity changes over time, making comparison of breed-specific bite rates unreliable. However a review of the research that attempts to quantify the relation between breed and bite risk finds the connection to be weak or absent, while responsible ownership variables such as socialization, neutering and proper containment of dogs are much more strongly indicated as important risk factors.)

AVSAB sources:

• https://avsab.org/article-summary-behavioral-differences-among-breeds-of-domestic-dogs/ (Bite incident reports point to certain breeds (Pit Bull-type dogs and Rottweilers) as being responsible for more than 50% of bite-related fatalities (likely due at least in part to their larger size). Yet surveys of owners, veterinarians, and breed judges point to other breeds as being predominant in this category and their conclusions furthermore are inconsistent with each other. No direct experimental assessments of breed differences in this behavior have been published.)
• https://avsab.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Breed-Specific_Legislation-download-_8-18-14.pdf (Breed alone is not predictive of the risk of aggressive behavior. Dogs and owners must be evaluated individually.) and (7 A cross-Canada study published in 2013 also concluded that there was no difference in the dog bite incidences between municipalities with and without breed-specific legislation.)

CDC 2000 position described on BSL data: https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-breed-specific-legislation (The CDC strongly recommends against breed-specific laws in its oft-cited study of fatal dog attacks, noting that data collection related to bites by breed is fraught with potential sources of error (Sacks et al., 2000). Specifically, the authors of this and other studies cite the inherent difficulties in breed identification (especially among mixed-breed dogs) and in calculating a breed’s bite rate given the lack of consistent data on breed population and the actual number of bites occurring in a community, especially when the injury is not deemed serious enough to require treatment in an emergency room (Sacks et al., 2000; AVMA, 2001; Collier, 2006). Supporting the concern regarding identification, a recent study noted a significant discrepancy between visual determination of breed and DNA determination of breed (Voith et al., 2009).)

PearlSt82 (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia's job to report statistics This 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.

You are citing clearly biased sources. "Disproportionately dangerous" and "responsible for a disproportionate number of bites and attacks" are not the same thing. The former is an interpretive statement. The latter is a factual record.

On the one hand, you cite the age of an article as evidence of unreliability (not a definitive measure for RS whatsoever) yet you also cite a 20-year-old CDC study. This is not consistent or objective to the degree that's needed to improve this page.

I'm not going to keep responding to these point by point, but address your edits. You should not have removed the bit about the pit bull biting behavior. This is a section addressed with numerous sources in the body of the article, and the lead must make not of it. Prominent controversies must be included per MOS:LEAD. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

AVMA, AVSAB, APSCA and CDC are not biased sources. Content sourced to non-RS like dogsbite.org and a 35 year old Sports Illustrated article should be removed. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Likewise, dogbite statistics are fraught with error, as commented on by multiple reliable sources, some of which I've posted above. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Dogsbite.org is obviously an opinionated source, but it is not one that is unreliable for that reason, and note that Dogsbite.org only sources objective statistics, not commentary. Sources like the CDC, AVSAB, and ASPCA are vulnerable to bias as with any other source, and this is particularly acute where they use commentary and language echoing sentiments of advocacy organizations and omit or fail to note objective facts against the arguments they make. And let's be clear: these organizations are engaged in advocacy in the sources you linked, not objective analysis. They are arguing for a conclusion.

You also keep harping on a 35-year-old SI article. I don't know why this is worthy of extensive discussion. The same points are made in more recent articles, see the NYT, Forbes, etc. Harping on a single source that echoes the same sentiments in other sources to attack a set of commentary is misleading.

The above sources do not argue "flaws" in the data. The data is what it is: data. The sources make arguments about how to properly interpret that data with regards to subjective characterizations like dangerousness. Again, please read the past GA reviews and see why these arguments mirror the same problematic lines of thinking that GA reviewers were critical of and why this article has failed to meet those criteria despite multiple attempts. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Kindly stop removing sourced material about reputational, statistical, or other information in the lead that is also cited within the article. The lead must mention prominent controversies and summarize the article as a whole: that does not mean picking and choosing information selectively and juxtaposing negative statements with positive ones. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe you're seriously trying to argue that the CDC, AVSAB, and ASPCA are biased, but dogsbite.org, a nakedly pro-BSL advocacy group, whose sole owner and operator has no professional experience in veterinary medicine or animal behavior, is fine. Likewise, Sports Illustrated is not a reliable source for anything in this article, especially when recent scholarship contradicts their claims. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

And likewise, we don't report raw data. Per WP:MEDRS, we report the conclusions of reliable organizations who analyze the data - in the case, it would be the veterinary and animal behavior experts, the AVMA and AVSAB. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

All sources are opinionated, and those potential biases qualify how those sources can be used. I agree with you that Dogsbite.org is an advocacy organization. If you'll note, I did not cite them for any interpretive statements, arguments, or commentary: they are only used for compilations of statistics or data, and other information such as which jurisdictions in the U.S. have anti-pit bull regulations. The CDC, AVSAB, and ASPCA deserve to be treated distinctly. The ASPCA is an animal advocacy group that seeks to adopt out animals including pit bulls. There are tens of thousands of pit bulls in ASPCA shelters that that organization is seeking to put out for adoption. They have a business interest against certain views on pitbulls. The AVSAB's statements reveal an obvious bias—here, they parrot arguments from pro-pitbull advocacy organizations and dismiss data. This organization is dedicated to making policy arguments about pit bulls and does not dispute data that shows these dogs disproportionately bite people. This is obviously an opinionated organization, and that's fine, but we cannot mask their position because of a "neural sounding" name. Finally, the last time the CDC collected info on dog bites based on breed, it showed that pit bulls were responsible for the vast majority of such bites. See here. The CDC no longer collects such information, so again, there is no position from the CDC that directly disputes or disproves these stats. So we have an organization that actually collects data and provides evidence as to that methodology, and we have competing organizations that refuse to acknowledge or collect that same data yet make arguments that directly relate to it. It is incorrect to say that Wikipedia presents "raw data." Data, statistics, and percentages compiled by secondary sources and presented by those sources do not need to be accompanied by commentary for inclusion. We certainly could include the commentary by those organizations, but we don't have to. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem with statistics as presented by dogsbite.org and others is that dog bite statistics are fraught with error. This is why the CDC doesn't collect this data. Likewise, the unreliability of dog bite statistics have been commented on by multiple reliable sources. If you need such sourcing, I will be happy to provide, as above. As such, we shouldn't present statistics and data as-is without relying on interpretative secondary sourcing.

The AVSAB is a membership organization of animal behaviorists, whose mission statement is: "AVSAB’s mission is to share accurate, science-based education and information to their membership. AVSAB also periodically publishes membership consensus position statements to share with the entire veterinary profession and to the public on common behavior controversies and practices.". Since Wikipedia policy, per WP:MEDRS, "position statements from national or international expert bodies" should be valued the highest. Animal behavior and veterinary anatomy is biomedical information which falls under this, per WP:Biomedical_information. The leading professional membership organization of animal behaviorists clearly falls under this category. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

From the AVMA: Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite.7 Invariably the numbers will show that dogs from popular, large breeds are a problem. This should be expected because big dogs can physically do more damage if they do bite and any popular breed has more individuals that could bite. Dogs from small breeds also bite and are capable of causing severe injury. There are several reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds. First, the breed of the biting dog may not be accurately recorded, and mixed-breed dogs are commonly described as if they were purebreds. Second, the actual number of bites that occur in a community is not known, especially if they did not result in serious injury. Third, the number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed and existing licensing data is then incomplete.7 Breed data likely vary between communities, states, or regions, and can even vary between neighborhoods within a community.

From the ASPCA: As certain breeds are regulated, individuals who exploit aggression in dogs are likely to turn to other, unregulated breeds (Sacks et al., 2000). Following enactment of a 1990 pit bull ban in Winnipeg, Canada, Rottweiler bites increased dramatically (Winnipeg reported bite statistics, 1984-2003). By contrast, following Winnipeg’s enactment of a breed-neutral dangerous dog law in 2000, pit bull bites remained low and both Rottweiler and total dog bites decreased significantly (Winnipeg reported bite statistics, 1984-2003).

From the ASVAB: A study published in 2009 proved that visual ID was usually inaccurate compared to canine genetic testing.20 The breed identification assigned at adoption was compared to DNA test results for those dogs, and not surprisingly the visual ID matched the predominant breed proven in DNA analysis in only 25% of the dogs.20 Follow-up studies confirm that visual breed identification is highly inconsistent and inaccurate. and A study of dog bites in Spain between 1990- 1995 (before the 2000 Dangerous Dog Act was enacted) compared to another study conducted from 2000-2004 revealed no difference in the distribution of dog breeds involved in bites; in fact, fewer than 4% of the bites in each of the time periods were caused by dogs on the dangerous breeds ban list.7 In Winnipeg, Manitoba, there was no difference in the incidence of dog bite injury hospitalizations prior to or following the enactment of BSL.27 A cross-Canada study published in 2013 also concluded that there was no difference in the dog bite incidences between municipalities with and without breed-specific legislation.28 In 2008, the Dutch government repealed a 15-year nationwide ban on pit bulls after a government study showed it to be ineffective.6,29 Following the change, dogs were to be judged based on their behavior, not breed, size or appearance. A similar list of “dangerous breeds” was repealed in Italy in 2009 with the focus changing to responsible ownership.30 Breed-specific legislation effectiveness is also under scrutiny in the United States. Denver enacted BSL in 1989. Denver has since experienced a higher rate of hospitalizations as a result of dog bite related injuries than breed-neutral Boulder, CO.31 In May 2012, the state of Ohio passed legislation removing pit bulls from its definition of vicious dogs, and made other changes to put the focus on dangerous dogs (irrespective of breed or mix) and responsible ownership.32

These sources make it clear that there are serious errors with collecting dog bite stats by breed, and thus we should not be reporting them as is. Additionally, these sources demonstrate dog prevalence by breed in statistics is dependent on how many dogs are in the area - areas which have been noted by these sources to adopt BSL, and thus having no pit bulls, are not seeing a reduction in hospitalization for dog bites. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

No, these sources make arguments from a biased perspective. "BSL" is a derogatory term for bans on pit bulls that is used and propagated by advocacy groups. The arguments above show that these organizations are biased—one the one hand, they are stringently arguing that basic statistics on breeds should not be collected, and on the other, they make arguments that dangerousness can be assessed by breed and that pit bulls are "not" a dangerous breed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

This reads a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. These are the leading veterinary and animal behavior organizations, and any notion they're somehow biased for pit bulls against proper public safety measures is ridiculous. "BSL" is hardly a derogatory term, but rather an accurate descriptor of legislation banning certain breeds of dogs. Furthermore - they are not making an argument that dangerousness can be assessed by breed, they are making the argument that breed statistics are fraught with error, and that in areas that have enacted BSL and seen drastic reductions in pit bull numbers, the same areas are not seeing a reduction in overall dog bites and hospitalizations, which demonstrates that pit bulls do not bite or hospitalize disproportionately. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it's a matter of properly distinguishing between advocacy and not accepting as fact policy arguments by organizations with a vested interest in particular outcomes. Animal advocacy groups and veterinary groups are almost certain to take a more sympathetic approach towards pit bull legislation. Public safety-minded experts, on the other hand, are likely to take a different approach. You claim that basic statistics are "fraught with error" without reference to any individual source's methodology, yet accept without question studies that purport to show individual breeds are "not dangerous." This is a baffling contradiction and is not reconciled by any of the points you have made above. The views you cited may appropriately be included, but not to the exclusion of contrary information or arguments. Mainstream sources also are the best in documenting public perceptions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Veterinary groups do not have a vested interest in any particular outcome but one that is science-based. Breed-specific legislation has shown not to be effective, or rooted in any of the science, which you seem to be ignoring, claiming it is biased. One of the most recent, comprehensive studies on dog bite related fatalities, "Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite–related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009), pubished in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, states "Most DBRFs were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these. Study results supported previous recommendations for multifactorial approaches, instead of single-factor solutions such as breed-specific legislation, for dog bite prevention." - there is no contradiction here, in that the animal behavior literature and controlled studies, they demonstrate that human behavior and socio-economic factors are the problems with aggression, not breed. Fatalities are the most serious form of dog bite, and likely the incidents which have the most data, and in this comprehensive study, it was found that Major co-occurrent factors for the 256 DBRFs included absence of an able-bodied person to intervene (n = 223 [87.1%]), incidental or no familiar relationship of victims with dogs (218 [85.2%]), owner failure to neuter dogs (216 [84.4%]), compromised ability of victims to interact appropriately with dogs (198 [77.4%]), dogs kept isolated from regular positive human interactions versus family dogs (195 [76.2%]), owners’ prior mismanagement of dogs (96 [37.5%]), and owners’ history of abuse or neglect of dogs (54 [21.1%]). Four or more of these factors co-occurred in 206 (80.5%) deaths. For 401 dogs described in various media accounts, reported breed differed for 124 (30.9%); for 346 dogs with both media and animal control breed reports, breed differed for 139 (40.2%). Valid breed determination was possible for only 45 (17.6%) DBRFs; 20 breeds, including 2 known mixes, were identified. - which demonstrates that breed misidentification is a major issue in statistic methodology, and that other factors weigh more heavily than breed. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

(Arbitrary break for ease of inserting future edits)

Been away from my computer for hours; just read this exchange; here are my comments/observations:

• C-BARQ is based on owner-surveys, so that's not very scientific.
• Aggression is less of an issue with pit bulls than dangerousness; no one really cares about Chihuahuas biting you.
• CDC, Lockwood and Sacks haven't written a study in 20 years, which makes their studies somewhat obsolete (at least a secondary choice if there is newer information that clarifies).
• Cavalryman, my experience with reworking ledes is that its better to tackle all the sections of an article first, and then summarize it when you're done; starting with the lede is rarely a good idea.
• I would not use Dickey's book because she is not a dog expert, nor a pit bull expert, has written only one book (which appears commissioned), and the book's content has been controversial; I would object to use of Dickey as a main source for this article.
• Wikieditor19920 is correct that yes it would be appropriate to include "a conglomeration of reputational, statistical, scientific, and lay information" which will help to balance the POV of this article.
• A few editors have been hindering the improvement of this article for a long time (see edit history). I have watched this article be "policed" with a heavy hand where almost all edits have been reverted for a very long time. There are occasional attempts to introduce information and, when reverted by the policers, new complaints are added to the Talk page. See the Talk page archives to see how often other editors have complained about the slanted POV of this article.
• Wikieditor19920 seems to have done some homework about GA reviews. If WE19920 says that we're going down the same old path that has lead to non-resolution of the persistent POV-complaints about this article, then we should look at how we can break through the barriers.
• There may not be a formal organization or lobby called "the pit bull lobby", but the term has often enough been used to describe the organized efforts to sway public opinion and legislation about pit bulls using arguments that are pro-pit bull and pit bull apologizing/excusing, and using concerted effort to "PR" pit bulls while undermining their detractors. This includes efforts to commission studies and sway opinion/positions of other organizations (such as AVMA, ASPCA, etc.), and using such tools as American Bar Association resolution 100 signed by the "pit bull lobby's" leading legal advocate, Ledy VanKavage. Is that not a lobby? (I'm surprised there is no Wikipedia article for VanKavage, Animal Farm Foundation, National Canine Research Council, or "pit bull lobby" since these are all notable enough to have been included in Wikipedia.)
• PearlSt82's POV about pit bulls (repeatedly expressed on Talk pages) include: pit bulls are no different than any other dog, pit bulls bite no more frequently than any other dog and their bites are no different, pit bulls are no more aggressive than any other dog, pit bulls cannot be reliably identified, fatal dog attacks should not be covered in Wikipedia without first pointing out that such fatalities are rare, and any bite or fatality caused by a pit bull must have some reason that doesn't include genetics or inherent breed behaviors. These positions ARE the positions of the pit bull lobby, and they fly in the teeth of contemporary news coverage, contemporary studies, and statistics for the last 20 years. It doesn't serve well the readers of Wikipedia to present such a one-sided opinion of pit bulls when there is so much other reliable source written about the dangerousness of pit bulls. Where is that coverage in Wikipedia? Nowhere. It's not a FRINGE idea that should be suppressed from Wikipedia.
• PearlSt82 has used three tools to great effect: a vast library of pro pit bull studies and writings, a litigator-style for argumentation on Wikipedia talk pages, and an unusual viewpoint about MEDRS and how it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of studies with respect to pit bull bites. All three combined have resulted in the exclusion of all studies and content not adhering to PearlSt82's POV. Again, this is not serving the readership of Wikipedia.
• If we are to present a NPOV, then one cannot populate an article with only one side of the debate; and there surely is a debate going on in contemporary writings. NPOV dictates that both sides should be covered according to their coverage (DUEWEIGHT) and not based on the viewpoints of only one side of the debate.
• Only when the neutrality/POV complaints stop on the Talk page will you know if your revisions have succeeded in balancing the article. Up until now, we have failed to present a NPOV in this article.

— Normal Op (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if claiming the AVMA, AVSAB etc being part of a shadowy "pit bull lobby" holds any weight - this kind of conspiratorial mindset toes very closely to WP:FRINGE. As for WP:MEDRS, veterinary information, or epidemiology when sourced from medical journals, clearly applies. As for any supposed POV, all of my edits have been reliably sourced, and conducted in accordance with (my reading) of Wikipedia policy. Pretty much all the sources in favor of a pro-BSL position come from the popular press and extensively cite statistics from dogsbite.org - which as noted previously, are problematic. I'm not sure of any veterinary body or animal behavior body, or any high level secondary literature reviews which would support "the other side", which in my opinion, would be giving the issue WP:FALSEBALANCE. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, thank you for posting that American Bar Association source, as it shows that the leading legal body of the United States passed a resolution that demonstrates BSL as ineffective, as it both agrees with, and provides another dimension into what the veterinary sources are saying. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The bar association resolution has been used with your same arguments to pressure other organizations to take a position that sides with the pro pit bull lobby. Lead by VanKavage, it IS the primary tool used to bully everyone and everyorg to toe a line and not seem so out of synch with the people. It does NOT, however, represent the majority legal viewpoint, and the ABA is its own advocacy organization. Its resolutions do NOT, as you would like to ascribe, hold any legal weight in a court of law, nor should it on Wikipedia. Normal Op (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

My problem is with the ridiculous argument that a) statistics are not allowed on Wikipedia (they are) and b) statistics that categorize based on breed are unacceptable when measuring bites and attacks (see here for another study based on hospital visits by children, pit bulls responsible for 50%) yet the same categorization is acceptable when it is used to promote the conclusion that pit bulls are not "dangerous." The reason these sources should be viewed with skepticism is their obviously circular arguments, where: 1) pit bulls are not dangerous, but we're not going to look at statistics on number of bites attacks or other incidents, and any such data should be ignored 2) even if pit bulls are dangerous, it's not because of why people think (commence nurture argument/abuse/blame owner/neglect/unsupervised children, etc.). It's ridiculous, and some of the studies put out by supposedly prestigious institutions are of such embarrassingly poor quality that it is worth qualifying them in some respect with alternative niche sources that offer a more balanced/rigorous view. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, I do not think we are here to argue whether or not pit bull bans (Breed Specific Legislation or "BSL" as another user has called them, and which i will note is a term used by advocacy orgs) are effective in preventing pit bull attacks or dog attacks. That information can be included, but it's also key to include background as to why they are contemplated and have become a contentious issue, and that has to do with a) the reputation of the pit bull dog and b) statistics showing the # of incidents these dogs are involved in with people. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As sources repeatedly show, the issue is more complicated than just breed/genetics and nuance from veterinary and behavioral professionals is required to analyze statistics and interpret studies as to not come to erroneous conclusions. This is the core of WP:MEDRS. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the core of MEDRS is a cover-your-butt policy to ensure that people don't get hurt by bad medical advice, and Wikipedia doesn't get sued. Both worthy causes, but hardly a valid barrier to ensure no third-party dog bite data or conclusions get into Wikipedia. Normal Op (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS applies to medical information about human conditions, not the behavioral tendencies of animals or studies thereof. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biomedical_information says WP:MEDRS applies to non-humans. It especially applies when you try to use a primary study out of a medical journal, as the one posted above. It also covers "Health effects" to humans - the wording here is Whether human health is affected by a particular substance, practice, environmental factor, or other variable; what those effects are, how and when they occur or how likely they are, at what levels they occur, and to what degree; whether the effects (or the original variables) are safe, nutritious, toxic, beneficial, detrimental, etc.. Dog bites, especially fatalities, fall under this. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but the effect on humans is a distinct subject from the behaviorial tendencies of the breed. Statistics on dog bites by breed often come from peer reviewed studies, which can be used in the article. Dogsbite.org is mostly a compilation of peer-reviewed material. This, this, and this, and this all comment on the frequency and severity of pit bull bites. These are wholly appropriate per WP:MEDRS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Dogsbite.org is not a RS - its a self-published source by someone who has no credentials in the field. Its a clear advocacy for BSL and has their methodology has been disputed by the AVSAB. Those medical articles are all primary studies, and as far as I know none of those medical articles discuss their methodology for how they identified breed. When the above JAVMA review notes that in only 17.6% cases of DBRF was breed reliability identified, how is this issue resolved with much broader trauma intake? This is why secondary analysis is so important, as they should be the ones analyzing primary studies, not in Wikipedia's voice. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

These were not "primary studies." These are peer-reviewed, published sources that drew conclusions based on data and research, and offered those conclusions and findings in these papers. If you have a specific criticism of any one of these sources, you are free to raise it. A broad-based criticism of any study that categorizes by breed but reaches the "wrong" conclusion (that pit bulls are responsible for a disproportionate number of bites) yet permits inclusion of studies that make the same claims to breed identification, but reach the opposite conclusion, is unacceptable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:14, 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 Harristalk 22:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, though, I think we might be at the point where additional editors comments would be welcome to try to resolve some of these issues. PearlSt82 (talk) 23:06, 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)

I think the core argument here is that data about the number of dog bites per year by this breed are unacceptable, yet these circular, illogical studies from renowned veterinary institutions are. This is ridiculous. We need to a) account for the bias in these organizations, which have taken clear policy positions against legislating pit bulls and then built a portfolio of "studies" to support that conclusion, and b) treat studies that refuse to look at crucial sets of data yet draw conclusions in the absence of it with a healthy degree of skepticism. The studies above are absolutely secondary sources, they are not "raw data." Raw data would be if I went to the hospital myself and asked for their ER stats on pit bull attacks. Any source that researches and compiles data, and then analyzes it and offers conclusions/recommendations is a secondary source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Further, the assertion that veterinarian publishings (writing about their theories on dog behavior) are more important, significant and reliable than medical professional publishings (which have universally reported that pit bull type dogs create the majority of serious injuries and deaths of all dog bites they see) based on the technicality of secondary-versus-primary studies or beholden to the 17.6% faulty conclusion is ridiculous, and has lead us to the too-oft repeated discussions about not neutral POV content in Wikipedia. Normal Op (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Disagreed again these are secondary sources. The three medical studies you posted - "Characteristics of 1616 Consecutive Dog Bite Injuries at a Single Institution" in the title and abstract, its stats from a single institution. "Dog bites of the head and neck: an evaluation of a common pediatric trauma and associated treatment" - also a single institution. "Ocular Trauma From Dog Bites: Characterization, Associations, and Treatment Patterns at a Regional Level I Trauma Center Over 11 Years" - single institution. These don't speak to broader trends applicable to the entire breed, but rather just give you a data point at one particular place at one point in time. As veterinary sources note, in areas with BSL where pit bull populations are near zero, overall dog bite hospital intake numbers do not change with the shift in dog population. PearlSt82 (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, from WP:MEDRS: A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, ran the experiments, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made. and A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations.. These medical journal sources are clearly primary sources per this definition. PearlSt82 (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

And Normal Op, the 17.6% comes from this paper, not the Voith study. PearlSt82 (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Mea culpa; there is 17.6% in Voith, too. Someone, please, make another arbitrary section break to break up walls of text. Normal Op (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Statistics on dog bites do not need to be limited to misleading studies by a limited number of organizations with an advocacy agenda. Here is yet another secondary publication confirming the disproportionate role that pit bulls play in dog attacks. These are facts--not the type of medical conjecture that calls for a peer-reviewed study per WP:MEDRS. Of note, NONE of the studies that the above user linked dispute these facts--they merely attempt to explain them away or outright ignore them, instead using vague notions of "aggression" and "dangerousness" based on definitions that would confuse most laypersons. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Fork article?

Any idea why this other article Bull-type terriers exists? William Harristalk 09:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

My feelings are given this is a term used predominantly in North America and the vast majority of the contents are about these dogs in North America, there is room for separate articles. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC).

Bull Terrier is typically not seen as a pit bull, but for the other information it looks like weak sourcing.PearlSt82 (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the only notable aspect of that other article is that the FCI (which is a major registry) does recognize the existence of a grouping off "bull-type terriers", which includes essentially the same breeds as are recognized as "pit bull types" in North America, though only the breeds that they recognize (so AmStaffs, but not APBT, even though the breeds are essentially identical), and includes the bull terrier which is normally not included with pit bull types (though was actually included here when I first watchlisted the article, though has been long removed). Everything else is just plain redundant. It doesn't matter at all if "pit bull" is a predominantly North American term, that doesn't justify a separate article, as Wikipedia articles are on concepts, not the names for them. I see no reason for that article to exist. It should be redirected here, with a description of FCI's grouping included as one way to define the type. (The fact that the person who started that article added the term as a "see also" at the terrier article months before they made that article instead of properly linking it in the article body where it is mentioned tells me that the article was incompetently created and the person didn't do enough to see that it was a redundant fork.) oknazevad (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)