Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
This article is NOT a very good article! If its supposed to be about the breed, then it sucks. This doesn't tell me much about Pit Bulls at all! Not if they are healthy, what jobs they are good for(well a very little bit) and barely anything about their recognition to clubs. Not even a description of what markings constitute a purebred. Those are the things an article about a dog should focus on more, I think. If its about the safety issue, then it needs to be renamed, and it needs to have both sides of the issue! Like that guy, That Dog Whisperer on TV and others who seem to think the trouble has nothing to do with the breed, but training and abuse, and if you legislate against Pit Bulls, nothing would be solved, because the bad guys would just train a different breed of dog to do the same thing, and there would just be as many accidents and victims. This article goes a bit to that in admitting that the breed is chosen by people who use them to dog fight, act as weapons and guard places, but it oddly uses this as proof that they are innately dangerous, not that they are trained to be so, just as any other dog would be in their place, and that they would likely be replaced by another dominant breed. So the article fails to provide the anti legislation opinion at all, much less in equal terms. It is written as if Pitt Bulls are already illegal(thats what I first thought when I read it!), and justifies that action. A lot of things are unsourced. For example; It states that many municipalities have laws against ownership, but the only footnote is the one about the army banning them in the family living areas at the base, nothing else. Besides; How many is "many". A lot of things are badly sourced. For Example; The footnote of the Dog Deaths in the United States portion of the article leads me to another wikipedia article, also written by the same person as this one! You can't use one of your own articles to provide proof for another! Another example; The article where the police spokesman was supposedly talking about Pit Bulls being the primary dog used by drug dealers and others who use them as a weapon barely mentions the breed. They are mostly talking about dogs that are trained to act aggressive to intruders in general, and how that affects the police. Nor does the article condemn the dog owners. Obviously it can be good for a dog to protect against an intruder. Its just a bummer for the police. The article didn't pick sides. Also, the introduction uses the word "and" about three times in one sentence, and generally is lacking in grammar. It never mentions that households have them as legal and happy pets. I live in Minneapolis, and I see they are legal here. I certainly see them with seemingly satisfied owners. This mentions that the Humane Society kills tons of them. The reason for that is that many Pit Bulls are bred and trained for dog fighting, thus they are so often confiscated and euthanized. I realize there may be legit concern about safety in keeping the breed as pets. I also admit I don't know that much about the issue. But this article is out of balance. I think it needs to be re written by someone with a more neutral opinion. No offense Astro. And no disrespect to your agenda. You may be totally correct. But this is not the place to further the viewpoint. Besides. Pit Bull isn't even a breed. Its just a term less knowledgeable people(like me) call several breeds. Maybe all the article really needs to say is what breeds belong to "Pit Bull" and direct the reader there. Perhaps its best to delete much of this article and whatever ones relating to this safety issue, and simply put all this safety information under one article "Dog Safety Legislation" Then you can talk about the bills, the dog death facts and everything, and the people who will see it are the ones looking for it! And both views for and against can be expressed.(Lollipopfop (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC))
Obviously there's contention as to whether Pit Bulls are a more aggressive or violent dog. Nearly the entire article is spent on this. This means a summary of that argument needs to appear in the lead. I propose something along the lines of, "Though often depicted as a breed particularly aggressive and sometimes violent to humans, the truth of this characterization has been contested."--Loodog (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
How about this: "The temperament of pit-bull type dogs is disputed", followed by a summary of the positions with citations for each, similar to the way that "breed specific legislation" is summarized. This could lead to a fairly long discussion, but I would suggest limiting it to the breed conformation characteristics as identified by the United Kennel Club and the American Kennel Club, and findings from various court decisions.Astro$01 (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The text under discussion is:
It is impossible to say with certainty if the number of pit bull-type dog attacks is out of proportion to the number of pit bull-type dogs in the population because the total number of pit bulls in any geographic area is unknown.
The question is whether a specific citation is needed to assert that "it is impossible to say with certainty...." I think the answer is "no." My logic is as follows:
There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.
If there is no way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, then it is impossible to draw the conclusion at (3) above because you cannot get past step (2), wherein you must know the number of a particular breed (or group of related breeds) to perform the calculations.
In light of the CDC position, the basis for an assertion by Temple Grandin "that the percentage of dog bites by pit bulls is much higher than their proportion in the general population of pet dogs" is unclear.
The CDC 2000 report specifically says (and is quoted in the wiki article):
It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities
The cited text gives the proportionality statement in terms of likelihood, rather than an absolute fact, so it seems more precisely stated than in the Grandin citation. Yes, and therefore, its just an opinion, and it should not appear in Wikipedia. It may be true, but as you have no proof, it means the comment needs to be excluded, not kept in the form of an opinion. -LOllipopfop )1/13/2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipopfop (talk • contribs) 07:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I suggest restoring the text to its original condition. Astro$01 (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Proportionality text revised. Astro$01 (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The text in the history section has been entirely unsourced since January 2007; the exception is the number of times pit bull-type dogs appeared on the cover of Life magazine.
There are brief histories of the three breeds (American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier) that are grouped together as pit bull-type dogs on the websites of the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club. I propose substituting text from those sites (with attribution) for all the current "history" text.Astro$01 (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Revised with citations from the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club. Astro$01 (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I propose to delete the overall category of "legal challenges" and shift the main subgroups (Canada, United States) to follow the tables within the country-specific portions of the BSL section, since these are the only countries found so far with legal challenges to BSL aimed at pit bull-type dogs. Astro$01 (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Implemented Astro$01 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
1. The survey statistics themselves indicate a bias against pit bulls. 2/3ds of 'pit bull terrier' attacks in the survey cause maiming or death, while 5/6 of all other breeds bites cause maiming or death. Simply put, there are different standards for what makes a noteworthy attack with less severe attacks from pitbulls making it into the survey where other breeds would not. 2. Merritt Clifton has shown no evidence that the news articles the survey is based on were based on expert identification of dogs, as the survey's methodology claims. 3. The 'Pit Bull Terrier' statistics are based on a group of various breeds, the only group based statistics in the survey. 4. The 2nd and 3rd person media reports the survey is based on may be based largely on misidentification or macho-ism. Pit Bulls have been reported to attack 1451 people in the survey, popular breeds that are similar: the Bull Terrier, American Bulldog and Presa Canario are rarely identified in attacks (54 attacks total). Similarly, look alike breeds such as the Dogo Argentino, Patterdale Terrier and Olde English Bulldogge have only 1 attack reported among them. Additionally, breeds that are commonly misidentified as pit bulls like the Rhodesian Ridgeback, Vizsla, Cane Corso and Doge De Bordeaux have not been credited with any attacks in 27 years. 5. The media has it's choice of severe dog attacks to choose from. The study surveys 1,451 articles covering an estimated 810,000 severe dog attacks in the time period.
Local and state courts have ruled that the report is incomplete and that it's methodology is outdated, noting that numerous modern canine behavior studies disprove its claims.
The analysis is subjective as its conclusions are not based on data gathered within the press articles it used as its data source. It can easily be compared to a one sided argument with Mr. Clifton offering a single solution - the extreme, and in his own words "prejudice" act of mandatory euthanasia of the Pit Bull breeds through breed specific legislation.
There have been discussions about dropping this section in the past. The survey is based on are inaccurate, incomplete, and often subjective. of the 45 Pit Bull attacks in the survey that can be independently searched a were known to be caused by a pit bull breed and 2 of those were aggressive acts, one of those was targeting a horse.
This reports and the numbers referencing it violate objective standards of this Wikipedia. Dwightlathan77 (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The text in question is in the lead section:
In the media the term is vague and may include other breeds with similar physical characteristics, such as the Perro de Presa Canario, Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Alano Español, Japanese Tosa, Dogue de Bordeaux, Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, American Bulldog, Boxer, Valley Bulldog, Olde English Bulldogge, Renascence Bulldogge, and Banter Bulldogge. These breeds are rarely listed by name in breed-specific legislation, but they are sometimes included when the term is defined broadly and based on physical appearance.[citation needed]
This material has no citation - I recommend it for deletion if sourcing cannot be found. Several of the breeds mentioned (Perro de Presa Canario, Dogo Argentino, Japanese Tosa) are cited as breeds separate from the pit bull-type dog. From personal experience, few people will mistake a Dogue de Bordeaux (as seen in the movie, Turner and Hooch) for a pit bull-type dog.Astro$01 (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
References to "similar" breeds deleted. Astro$01 (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I recommend deleting the section on the Clifton Report. The survey statistics themselves indicate a media bias which the survey is compiled on. 2/3ds of 'pit bull terrier' attacks in the survey cause maiming or death, while 5/6 of all other breeds bites cause maiming or death. Simply put, there are different standards for what makes a noteworthy attack with less severe attacks from pitbulls making it into the survey. Merritt Clifton has shown no evidence that the news articles the survey is based on were based on expert identification of dogs, as the survey's methodology claims. Further, the 'Pit Bull Terrier' statistics are based on a group of various breeds, the only group based statistics in the survey. In addition, I find it hard to believe that while Pit Bulls have attacked 1451 people, popular breeds that are similar: the Bull Terrier, American Bulldog and Presa Canario are rarely identified in attacks. Neither are look alike breeds such as the Dogo Argentino, Patterdale Terrier and Olde English Bulldogge. Breeds that are commonly misidentified as pit bulls like the Rhodesian Ridgeback, Vizsla, Cane Corso and Doge De Bordeaux have not been included in the 27 year long period as attacking anyone, ever!
There is already an entire Wikipedia article on dog fighting.
I propose deleting this separate section and weaving any discussions of dog fighting into the main text (with citations). Astro$01 (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Section deleted; added a sentence in the "History" section under "American Pit Bull Terrier." Astro$01 (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete this section if its contents are shifted to other sections Astro$01 (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted this section header (Only "commercial restrictions" remain) Astro$01 (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I propose deleting this section and instead adding a reference in the "Legislation specific to pit bull-type dogs" mentioning that pit bull-type dogs do not have "locking jaws" and providing an attributed citation. Astro$01 (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Section deleted; one sentence (with trial transcript citation) addresses this issue in the "fatalities" section Astro$01 (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Propose deleting the note about "bite, hold and shake" behaviour. This is not a trait unique to the pit bull but to any breed - observe any dog at play. Linking to pit bull advocacy and rescue groups who provide information on break sticks is misleading. These groups clearly indicate that a break stick is not necessary for every pit bull owner but instead for any dog owner whose individual dog has dog-to-dog aggression. Chicacheex (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The "bite hold and shake" behaviour has a citation linking to the Pit Bull Resource Central page, which identifies this is as a *terrier* trait, not a pit bull trait. Furthermore, that particular claim is not supported by a study or citation by a specific professional. I did a quick google search and couldn't find someone stating that this is a unique pit bull trait, so shouldn't the burden of proof be to proove that this IS a uniquely pit bull trait?
Astro$01 (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Unfortunately the pit bull, when it attacks, doesn't merely bite man—or, most horribly, child—it clamps its powerful jaws down and literally tears its victim apart. "The injuries these dogs inflict are more serious than other breeds because they go for the deep musculature and don't release; they hold and shake," says Sheryl Blair of the Tufts Veterinary School, in North Grafton, Mass., which last year held a symposium entitled Animal Agression: Dog Bites and the Pit Bull Terrier.
I maintain that the guidelines on the PBRC and Bad Rap sites are for any dog owners. If I can get a statement from both to this afffect, can this section be deleted or changed?
Chicacheex (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I propose to delete the "famous owners" section since it is US-focused and no new information has come to light regarding "famous owners" outside the United States. Astro$01 (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Section deleted. Astro$01 (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I propose to delete the "External Links" section since the 1st link (on dog bite statistics) does not reference pit bull terriers; the second links to a 1991 movie (A Little Vicious) about a pit bull-type dog saved from court-ordered euthanasia by the intervention of a professional dog trainer; the trainer is able to modify the dog's behavior, so court takes the dog from its owner and gives it to the trainer. Seems more of a curiosity than an encyclopedia entry; possibly move reference to the "History" section. Astro$01 (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Section deleted. Astro$01 (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This information is "current events" rather than encyclopedic in nature. Astro$01 (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Section deleted. Astro$01 (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The only information remaining in this section refers to a case in Alabama that did not address breed-specific legislation, but rather an administrative decision to euthanize pit bull puppies. Only indirect references to the original material appears to be available. If this material is ever found, it should be included as part of the challenges to breed-specific legislation under "Alabama" (this would be a new area in the relevant table). The "debate" is already encapsulated in the discussion of dog bite-related fatalities and breed-specific legislation Astro$01 (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Section deleted. Astro$01 (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
This section contains a series of books with a very strong POV. If we are trying to get rid of the POV issues with this article then we would either need to find books with a strong POV the other way (and identify them as such) or just get rid of these articles. It seems to me the POV is identified in the earlier BSL section, so we do not need more of that here. Astro$01 (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Section deleted. Astro$01 (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
This section contains some references to other wikipedia pages that are already referenced in the text. No need to list them twice. Astro$01 (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Section deleted. Astro$01 (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I propose adding a main section to organize discussion of commercial restrictions on pit bull ownership and activies, including restrictions on homeowners insurance, the ability to rent property as the owner of a pit bull-type dog, airline or other restrictions on travel, etc. to differentiate these restrictions from breed-specific legislation. Astro$01 (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Added this section; deleted "Insurance Problems" section after shifting relevant information to the new section. Astro$01 (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Added table on Air carrier breed-specific restrictions Astro$01 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Suggest the entire Commercial Regulations section be moved to a breed-specific legislation article. These issues are not unique to pit bulls: many organizations, municipalities or companies that restrict pit bulls have similar restrictions on rottweilers, dobermans, mastiff breeds, etc. (see breed-specific legislation Wikipedia article).
In the Airline list, only one carrier restricts transportation of pit bulls. Any other restrictions are based on safety concerns for the dog (extreme heat)and are not limited to pit bulls. Section is not relevant. Chicacheex (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This section comprised over 2/3 of the article (total size > 100 kB). Shifted to its own article, with reference pointers aiming at it. Astro$01 (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I've added a paragraph referencing the behavioral studies that have dominated Pit Bull research over the last decade, and have included a link to a court record as a source. I felt it important to add a source and the court record includes the testimony of 16 experts that testified on behalf of the appellant and the state. I know that the court record is not the ideal source and plan on adding additional references as I find appropriate sources.
Dwightlathan77 (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
As the rebuilder of this page over the past couple of months, I think I should put down here more detail on the whys and wherefores of the dog bite-related fatality information I added. If you don't like it, please post here and discuss proposed changes (as called for at the top of the page) before wandering through and libeling people or deleting entire sections. I continually extended that courtesy as I rewrote the section; please continue that practice now.
Astro$01 (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)=
I have deep concerns with the inclusion of this list - and the article as a whole. You've acknowledged that media reporting is a questionable source of data, but in absence of good stats is the solution to use biased and inferior statistics?
It's clearly incomplete. The only acceptable source for publishing statistics like this are studies from government agencies, animal control groups, or peer-reviewed journals. The fact that the list is separated into pit bull vs. non pit bull breeds suggests a bias from the outset. Not only that, but the loose term "pit bull type" dog is used to describe anything close to a pit bull or a pit bull mix.
In this more detailed analysis of the canine crimes - complete with links to media reports - http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2010/01/2009-dog-bite-fatalities-final-report.html
you'll note that in the media reports, many of the descriptions are vague, no photos are provided, no animal professional identification is done. It's overwhelmingly clear that the commonalities behind the attacks are abused and neglected dog rather than breed. (Why aren't the lists separated into "chained dogs" and "non chained dogs"?) Instead it's broken down by this vague "pit bull type" category and summarized with no context or caution.
I'll say it again. This a misleading and incomplete list. In 2009 alone, a quick internet search showed there were at least three deaths not reported on this list (and all three were non-pit bull breeds! Coincidence?)
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local-beat/Insane-Great-Dane-Rips-Into-Owner.html
Barbara Chambers attacked by her Great Dane. She subsequently died on April 11, 2009 from her injuries.
Israel Pope Jr. Cause of death was determined to be of an attack by feral dogs.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Elderly-Woman-Dies-After-Rottweiler-Bite.html
Dolly Newell. Bitten by a Rottweiler and subsequently died of the infected wound.
I will eventually submit changes to this list, but for now I suggest that these stats be removed from the pit bull article completely.
Minimally, the headline should be changed. These are not "Fatalities in the US" but "Media reported fatalities in the US". It should also mention that these are included because no independent or national statistics exist. Chicacheex (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what the section should be called, but how about a section where we discuss notable pro/anti groups (i.e., badrap.org, dogsbite.org), as well advocates and opponents (i.e., Cesar Milan), or positions from notable groups. Given the controversial nature of the topic, I think both sides deserve some coverage. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you are playing with fire to start inserting sources/references/opinions from organizations that are arguably not WP:Reliable sources and which emphasize a very strong POV - thanks, BTW, for pointing out that guidance! Your point is very well taken, so I'm going to try to present the same information using direct references, rather than through an aggregation site, as soon as I can.
I think the likely result of the new section will be one heck of an edit war, not to mention a lot of vandalism. We've already seen a precursor with the reaction of people who like pit bulls when they saw reporting of data collected (with solid attribution) by folks who do not like pit bulls. I think this article will be much better off if it keeps to "facts about pit bulls" rather than presenting an open invitation to "facts, observations, irrelevancies, opinions, vitriol, falsehoods, libels, personal insults, and smears aimed between people who like/do not like pit bulls." The breed-specific legislation page had a lot of the same problems, for a lot of the same reasons: "argument" was routinely presented as "fact." If you want a preview, just do a "Google" search for news stories keyed on "pit bull attack" and peruse the reader comments section that follows the reportage.
The Legislation specific to pit bull-type dogs" section already states the main positions surrounding pit bull-type dogs. I would let it go at that. Astro$01 (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that instead of a catalogue of questionable dog bite statistics, part of this article be moved to "breed specific legislation" and be replaced by a more neutral set of categories pertaining to the pit bull debate. On the advocates side we can list the work of Cesar Millan, the publicity surrounding the rehabilitated Vick dogs, media bias, and the work of many pit bull rescue organizations including BadRap, Pit Bull Rescue Central, Best Friends Animal Society, and Rescue Ink, who have rescued and re-homed tens of thousands of pit bulls into family environments without incident. Chicacheex (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with exactly how closely Wikipedia would like to approximate what passes for "objective" among the scientific communities. The methodology used to attain the data in the Clifton Report would not be considered rigorous or be considered by a peer reviewed journal. Threats to the validity of the conclusions drawn from the data include, for starters, that none of the possible confounds to statistical conclusion validity have been addressed. For example, possibilities could include that pitbull attacks are more often published, that unsupervised children cause a statistically significant number of dog attacks in general, etc., etc., etc. There exists no reasonable causal inference where no confounds have been controlled for.
Appropriate methodology could include multiple regression, where different predictor variables such as unsupervised child, socioeconomic status, etc., are regressed onto the variable, fatal dog attack. Using this sort of method can allow for comparison of different contributors to dog fatalities, and can also lend to causal inference.
Causal inferences are RARELY considered reasonable by scientists when they are made basis of correlational data such as that presented in the Clifton Report. Multiple regression, which I all too briefly explained would be one exception.
Ask your local university professor.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.43.106 (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a need to ask the professors, as Clifton report does not claim the reported percentages are statistically significant or that they prove that the number of people killed by pit bull-type dogs is out of proportion to the number of pit bull-type dogs in the dog population; rather, the percentages are significant in an actuarial sense because the calculation of perceived risk, or probability of being bitten times the damage inflicted by a bite as measured by many politicians and insurance actuaries, is unacceptably high for pit bull-type dogs. As they say, when the lawn is mowed it is the tall grass that gets shortened. Astro$01 (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
You are still making a causal inference, that when pitbull-type dogs attack, they inflict more damage than other breeds. You are suggesting that pitbulls themselves CAUSE more damage than other breeds when they attack humans, rather than that humans are more vulnerable to damage in situations of pitbull-type dog attacks, for example. However unlikely my example is, no confounds have been controlled for in this "study", so you cannot responsibly judge how unreasonable my example is based on these data. A more likely confound would be that pitbull-type dog attacks on people, which are arguably sensationalized by the media, get more "press". Further, more attacks rendering the greatest damage probably find "press-time", or likewise, the most severe attacks are probably reported to insurance. This is called sampling bias, where the authors did not acquire a representative sample of pitbull-type dog attacks on people. This confounds the calculation of a probability of being bitten, and likewise a calculation of probable damage inflicted. You must have a representative sample of dog bite cases, such as a random sample, and know very near the total number of pitbull-type dogs to calculate the probability of being attacked or the probable damage.
I think the issue here is that you believe you can calculate a probability based on what you think is a representative sample of the most severe attacks. You cannot, as you need the total number of dogs of the breed or type to do so. If there are one hundred attacks on people by Golden Retrievers, and two hundred attacks by pitbull-type dogs, with the latter attacks doing twice the damage on average, this tells me nothing about how likely I am to be severely damaged by a pitbull-type dog. I would need a representative sample of attacks by both breeds, and the total number of the dogs of both breeds to calculate this.
But is it right to put in a study if it is quite obviously so flawed? Especially as this issue is actually due for possible legislation? Its doubly important to give facts, and facts only. Not just what insurance companies decided. They also feel that those people who have red cars will have more accidents. There is certainly no proof of that, is there? The only way to know if Pit Bulls are any more dangerous is to include numbers owned, situation of the attack, training, and compare the numbers to an "acceptable" breed. Otherwise, it is best not to use numbers that are obviously easily misleading. Ill say, This whole thing worries me because of what I see as bias. Considering this could influence actual LAW, we owe it to the readers to do better then this! We need to exclude the numbers, because there is no study that is at all helpful right now. The one thing I see when I look at the dog deaths numbers is that they are very low. It would be fair to point out that the dog deaths in the past three years do not add up to the automobile deaths of the last three days!! (Lollipopfop (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC))
In this case, your metaphor is quite inadequate. Here we would be deciding which type of grass to stop planting, where we want lawn that doesn't grow too long, too often. Complicates things a bit.. While one type of grass may grow longer, what matters IS statistical significance. If only one blade grows longer than other types of grasses, would we stop growing this type? We need solid stats to make a decision like this.
I think the "study" under discussion represents poor methodology. Any generalization made from data should take into consideration its limitations.
If Wikipedia hopes to responsibly share information with the general public, it should either remove this article or acknowledge that the sample is not representative, and that it CANNOT be inferred that pitbulls cause more damage based on this data set. I'm not saying the article is worthless, if anything, it suggests it would be worth doing a better study on the variables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.112.214 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
One final note! The above alludes to the issue with BSL and apparently with the way insurance companies are doing business. In any sample there will be outliers, or extreme cases. The bigger the sample, the more extreme cases. It is a BSL supporters task to demonstrate that we are not talking only about outliers with pitbull-type dog attacks. This is because any popular breed of significant size will be associated with extreme cases where great damage is done to humans. Solid stats are needed to demonstrate this, and representative samples are needed for the stats. This is because a normal distribution is needed to carry out many statistical techniques. The distribution in the case of the Clifton Reports would be severely negatively skewed.
If we are only talking about outliers in pitbull-type dog attacks, than BSL does NO good. An illustration follows: Suppose ten thousand horses are owned, and ten people are killed. As horses gain popularity, two hundred people are killed. Do we get rid of horses? Are horses any more dangerous than they were before they were popular?
These are interesting issues for researchers and the public to sort out. Since Wikipedia has a broad audience, I think it this page on pitbull-type dogs serves to inform people's opinions related to BSL and other issues. I would appreciate it greatly if they don't get the perception that we know more than we do at this time, whether or not pitbull-type dogs turn out to be more dangerous than other dogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.112.214 (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
There was an old discussion in 2007 among three editors and all agreed that the Clifton report/study didn't meet the WP:RS standard. I can't find it on the Animal People News site and copies hosted by third parties does not indicate that it was published by Animal People. Even if it was published by Animal People, it might still not meet the RS standard, but right now it just looks like a self-published piece.--Dodo bird (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)That was a slip of the tongue. Of course I meant dog bites. Even if we accept that Kenneth Phillips meets the Self-published source criteria, the report was not authored by him but by Merritt Clifton. I don't see how SPS can apply.--Dodo bird (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I brought up the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dog_bite_fatalities.--Dodo bird (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Neither Clifton nor Phillips are experts in research! The Clifton report section is giving information about the number dog attack fatalities, NOT dog bite law OR how to edit a magazine or periodical! This is like asking a statistician about case law. Just because someone is called into court as a expert does not mean they are such. Does the professional organization licensing the person, or their degree, indicate they are an expert? Not in this case. Astro, I'm not sure why you are so attached to this report? I could go outside and count the stars. Would you consider me an astrologist and publish my numbers as factual? No! Because I don't know how to count starts using the proper tools!!!
I believe this study is massively biased and only studies using primary data should be covered in such detail. Why are studies like these not given the same profile? Fatal dog attacks in Canada (1990 - 2007). Canadian Veterinary Journal. Only one of 28 involves a pit bull breed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/
Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs (2007-2008). Breed determined not to be a factor in dog attacks - but reproductive status, gender, running at large is. http://www.livingsafelywithdogs.org/documents/DogBitesinColorado-FinalReport_000.pdf
At minimum, could we add a section..or minimally a mention...of media bias? Is it fair to include two "studies" based on media reports when there's evidence to suggest that media reports are biased and flawed?
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/dog-bites-and-the-media/
Thanks for your prompt feedback on these comments, by the way! 05:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicacheex (talk • contribs)
1. "Pit bulls seem to differ behaviorally from other dogs in having far less inhibition about attacking people who are larger than they are." (pg. 4)
2. "They are also notorious for attacking seemingly without warning, a tendency exacerbated by the custom of docking pit bulls' tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized." (pg. 4)
3. "In more than two-thirds of the cases I have logged, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question." (pg. 4)
"4. Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable." (pg. 7)
5. "If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed" (pg. 7)
To conclude, this article is basically an editorial. The limitations of these data render invalid any general conclusion derived from them. Why include a "study" if disclaimers reduce it to an editorial. Shall we include my opinion on Wikipedia as well?!? And I think the issue of BSL is certainly relevant to this discussion, since the Clifton reports include two pages addressing BSL. If BSL isn't relevant to this article, then the Clifton reports certainly aren't either!
The Clifton report is not independent research. Its a survey of media articles that mentions dog attacks. One in which the source data has not been provided and is unverifiable. The numbers are full of holes, as are his breed assumptions that he bases the analysis on. Several examples:
Don't say that the quote is not included in the article, the article clearly endorses and uses examples of the data in the report.Dwightlathan77 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see where the connection between this article and the insurance companies is made on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.45.165 (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I think these lists are a bit excessive per WP:UNDUE. Maybe in an article about dog attacks in general (because not all of the dogs are reported as pit bull type dogs). We don't list specific fatalities in pages for Rottweilers or German Shepherds, and we certainly don't list auto fatalities for certain breeds. If we're going to cover fatalities reported to be attributed to pit bull type dogs, a general summary should suffice. I feel bad deleting these sections because you obviously put a lot of work into putting them together; I just think they are out-of-place in this article. What do you think about creating a separate article about dog-related fatalities/attacks? OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I am finding a number of "famous owners" in the list who did not own pit bulls. I will append to this list as I review the page: Astro$01 (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Had many dogs; he had a boxer named "Harvey" (see ) but no pit bulls. Astro$01 (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is Mr. Bogart with his family, including boxers "Harvey", "George", and "Baby." .
Has a "mixed breed dog" (see ) but from photos (see ) it is more of a rottweiler/doberman mix than a pit bull. Astro$01 (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Never owned a dog while in the White House; he was in fact the last President not to own one. Astro$01 (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
She owns a golden retriever and a schnauzer (see ). with a photo of her with her dogs.
Unable to find any reliable or original citations other than pit bull advocacy sites. Propose removal. Astro$01 (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Unable to find any reliable or original citations other than pit bull advocacy sites. Propose removal. Astro$01 (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Added Helen Keller per her book, The story of my life. This book was published in 1903, so Ms. Keller's description of some of her dogs as "bull terriers" justifies her inclusion in the list since the Pit Bull article extends the definition of "pit bull-type dogs" to include dogs of the late 19th and early 20th century dogs contemporaneously labeled as "bull terriers". Astro$01 (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Of the two citations currently listed, one is self-labeled a work of fiction and the other is a fan club blog . Neither meets Wikipedia:RS criteria. Propose removal. Astro$01 (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Removed per WP:BLP. Astro$01 (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The three subsections under history should each have a {{Main}} tag under their headings, despite the fact that the links are given in the opening sentence of the section.
Working to implement the GA recommendations. Astro$01 (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The table on US fatalities.
Moved to top of the history section. Astro$01 (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I suggest deleting the section (as initially proposed at Talk:Pit_Bull#"Famous Owners" section - recommended for deletion) to more quickly achieve GA status, and then re-introducing it later as suggested by the GA reviewer as we try for Featured Article status (hey, we can dream, can't we?).... Astro$01 (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The lead of "Staffordshire bull terrier" stated that "It is an English breed of dog related to the bull terrier and its larger cousins the American Staffordshire terrier and the American pit bull terrier, the latter two being generally categorized as Pit bull terriers" which implies that Staffies are NOT pit bulls. I know this is a contentious issue at the best of times, but surely the basic foundation of the Pit Bull article should be at least which breeds fall under this group name? Which article is wrong? In the meanwhile, I removed the exemption from the Staffy article, but this does need clearing up. Sahmejil (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC).
"The American Pit Bull Terrier is the product of interbreeding between terriers and a now-extinct breed of bulldogs to produce a dog that combined the gameness of the terrier with the strength and athleticism of the bulldog."
I looked at the reference to that and it is not listed anywhere on that page that the American Pit Bull Terrier is a product of any known extinct bulldog. AS such, I have removed the "now extinct" until there is a reference to such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wabido (talk • contribs) 03:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Pit bull/Archive 6/GA2
The beginning of this wiki article indicates that pit bulls were initially fight dogs. Actually, they were initially catch dogs. Bulldogs.com is cited as the reference for this claim, and this website cites no reference for this information. Thus we cannot trace the claim to any historical document or person of expertise. This suggests that this article should only be used for a primer on pit bulls, and does not represent a rigorous historical account.
I dispute the need for an article explaining the use of the term ,pit bull, in legislation in the USA. Wikipedia is used by more than just americans. Bullterriers, English Staffords, bull dogs ect, are not classed as pit bulls in Australia, Europe, the UK and various other countries. These countries see Pitbulls as American Pitbulls and have laws specifically controlling or out lawing them specifically not these other breeds as-well. So an article referring to bull and terrier breeds under the US legislative term of Pitbull is confusing and just plain wrong to boot. So surly this should have being considered when writing a topic on the meaning of the term Pitbull. Considering the information is read by more than just americans, so should therefore be relevant to more than just americans as-well. I propose that the discussion on the use of the term Pitbull in US legislation should be a section in a article about American dangerous dog laws or something of the sort, not a whole subject on it own. We have enough trouble with these other breeds being confused with Pitbulls, with out an encyclopedia article referring to them as such. The more common use of the word should be the bulk of an article on the the term Pitbull. Which would be to simply say that it is just a shortened down or slang way of saying, American Pitbull Terrier, which would not need its own article either, only a reference to such on the American pit bull page. This article smears all these other breeds with the pit bull brush when 99% of the articles information refers specifically to the American pit bull terrier. Such sections relating to bite statistics, harm from pitbulls ect. Make it seem that these other breeds are included in the statistics when they actually refer specifically to the American pitbull terrier exclusively. This article just adds to the confusion about these breeds. Say if some one was to read this article trying to find out if an, English Stafford, was a good dog to get. They would finish reading thinking that the are a type of or closely related to the pitbull, when theres actually hundreds of years of difference in breeding between these two breeds. They would think there potentially dangerous which they generally are not. It just makes things to confusing which is exactly the opposite thing an encyclopedia is supposed to do. Thanks of reading and considering my comments. Evereadyo2 (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that the overall content in this page is slanted in favor of information groups that advocate BSL promote, rather than the subject itself.
Based on content from this page Google offers the following page description:
Pit Bull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to Clifton report (2009): The study methodology counted attacks "by dogs of clearly ... otherwise serious dog attacks" since it excludes "dogs whose breed type ... which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price. ...
The Clifton report that the description offers a link to is itself highly subjective and controversial. Courts have ruled its conclusions have been dis-proven, and its methodology outdated.
Dwightlathan77 (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.