Talk:Pit bull

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 13 as Talk:Pit bull/Archive 12 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Pitbulls were bred for fighting

A misinformed editor, at one point, added their own opinions into the article, not accurately depicting a study's author, but then citing the study as if the author made that statement.

Specifically, "Pit bulls were originally bred for bull baiting and dog fighting". The source used is here.

There author clearly states that Pit Bull Terriers were breed for fighting, which this page is not dedicated to and is irrelevant for all the other breeds that fall into the "pit-bull-type". No where in the study does it mention that Pit Bull Terrier would be used synonymously with pit bulls, in fact, the author clearly states that "pit bulls" contain several breeds, one of which is the APBT, and then goes into talking about how the Pit Bull Terrier has a history of fighting. Clearly the author intended that to apply to the only breed with a history, the APBT, which is why pit bull, or pit bull-type was not used. It made the author factually correct.

If the article was to be quote accurately, it would read "[American] Pit Bull Terriers were historically bred for fighting".

However, Including this within the article causes further confusion between "pit bulls" and the APBT. It also misleads the reader into believing that all pit-bull type dogs were bred to fight, which is factually incorrect. Confusion among the two terms is rampant, as illustrated by an editor above in the titled "The true APBT" heading.

If you disagree, please provide a factual and logical argument against it. Unbiased6969 (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The statement, all pit-bull type dogs were bred to fight .... is factually incorrect is false. The first sentence of the Britannica article states explicitly that pit bulls are fighting dogs [1]. Geogene (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

From your same source:

"The name has been applied historically to several breeds of dogs—including the Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier..."

Oxford dictionary[2] "A dog of an American variety of bull terrier, noted for its ferocity."

Clearly, its a term that applies to several dog breeds.

American Staffy, using your Briticanna[3] "the American Staffordshire Terrier has been bred for a stable temperament and adapted for hunting rodents and other vermin, for pursuing game, and for farm work, taking advantage of the breed’s strength and courage."

American Bully[4]. No where does it say the breed was bred for fighting. In fact, Briticanna[5] specifically mentions there has been specific efforts taken in the past to breed away from their fighting roots, which directly in conflict with your statement that "they were bred to fight".

Having an ancestor from bull-baiting does not equal being bred to bull-bait. Unbiased6969 (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Pit bulls, as a group, were bred to fight. Nothing you've quoted there disproves that. Geogene (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Pit bulls, as a group, originated from the Bull and Terriers. You seem to be working backwards in time, rather than starting from the beginning and working forwards.

Also, the Staffordshire Terrier[6] "Since then, more than a hundred years of responsible breeding has transformed both breeds from brawlers to loyal family companions."

Sure seems as if the AKC is saying they were bred away from their roots and not bred for fighting there.... hmm. Unbiased6969 (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

AKC[7]American Staffordshire Terriers, by contrast, did not have the demands of the fighting pit to steer their evolution. Instead, their breeders focused on uniform appearance and soundness of body and mind.

Sure seems like the AKC is stating that the American Staffy was bred away from fighting... which last I checked is in direct conflict with your assertion that all "pit bulls" were bred for fighting. Unbiased6969 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

In regards to the original issue, the source is quite clearly referring to the American Pit Bull Terrier with that sentence. It does classify pit bulls into a 'fighting' category, but it also does that for Boxer dogs and the Shar pei. I wouldn't use their category as a source as they don't clarify how they determined it and there's not much to say from it besides 'pit bulls have been categorised as a fighting breed'. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Currently the Wiki Article reads: "Pit bulls were originally bred for bull baiting and dog fighting,[43] and because of this heritage, they often show a tendency to attack other animals, which contributes to public stigma against the breed.[44] Pit bull attacks are often perceived as taking place "without warning", possibly due to the type's fighting heritage, as fighting dogs that do not signal aggression may do better in the ring."

Well, which one is it, do they have a fighting heritage, or were they bred to fight? Spoiler, they have a heritage from fighting (Bull and Terrier) of which, the Bull Terrier, Boston Terrier, American Staffordshire, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and Miniature Bull Terrier, and the American Pitbull Terrier.

To break this down even clearer:

Pit bulls (generic term used to describe dogs that appear to be descendants of the Bull and Terrier) originated from the | Bull and Terrier, which was specifically bred to fight. However, the Staffy, Boston, Bull Terrier, and the many muts that exist between, were never specifically bred to fight, in fact, plenty of information can be found illustrating they were bred to have better temperament, which is linked above to my replies to another editor. The information about the Staffy and company's breeding is recognized as such by the AKC and the UKC, so there shouldn't even need to be a discussion on this topic to make edits for something that is noncontroversial.

If there is no further discussion on the topic I will make the edits.Unbiased6969 (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you should demonstrate consensus before making any such changes. Geogene (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The source isn't referring to the pit bull, but rather the Pit Bull Terrier. I've removed as the sentence's claims aren't supported by the source given the source wasn't referring to pit bulls. The rest of the paragraph is untouched. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, a good-faithed editor can clearly read the source and see that the source is referring to the APBT. Now, why would the wiki article state "Pit bulls were originally bred for bull baiting and dog fighting" if the source clearly states that the APBT was?

It is incorrect and makes the reader that all breeds identified under the "pit bull" umbrella were bred for bull baiting and dog fighting, which has been demonstrated with references to the UKC and AKC to be false of several of the breeds that fall under the "pit bull" umbrella.

To leave the article in its current state goes against Wikipedia's goal, which is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". because it presents the reader with misinformation that goes against mainstream knowledge.

The article would be most factually correct, and have a NPOV if it stated "pit bulls descend from Bull and Terriers, which were bred for bull-baiting and dog fighting. The subsequent breeds were then bred to hunt hogs and be family companions. As a result of their genetic history, pit bulls can have a fighting instinct, which makes it vital that pit bull puppies be socialized well to minimize the effect of that instinct.

That is the mainstream, academic, viewpoint that should be presented. The article as currently written has a POV that ignores the 100+ of years that happened after dog fighting and bull baiting lost its prevalence and makes the reader think that pit bulls are the fighting dogs they originated from. Unbiased6969 (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know who added it but I can imagine 'Pit Bull Terrier' being mistaken as 'pit bull'. The same sentence also used the term 'breed', which is erroneous as pit bull is just a categorisation of several breeds. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The misuse of pit bull and Pit bull terrier is common, and this Wikipedia page unfortunately does not do a great job differentiating the two terms, even though they have their own Wikipedia pages. It actually confuses the two terms multiple times within the article. Pit bull breed, could be used to describe the APBT, but often times, its just used by people ignorant to the topic who think that pit bulls are actually one breed. Unbiased6969 (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If you see any instances of the article referring to 'pit bull' as a breed you can change the wording. I've already done that for a few examples. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I cant make simple edits correcting demonstratably false information without gaining concensus first apparently. Even so, I would need to check source material to see if changing the term is sufficient, or if the source is actually talking about the ABPT, in which case it should be removed from the pit bulls page as its off topic and better addressed on the APBT page. This page should be specifically for information that pertains, at least multiple breeds that fall under the pitbull breed, but ideally all to stay relvent to the topic and avoid confusing the reader. Unbiased6969 (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus shouldn't need to be sought for noncontroversial, widely known facts. It is those that wish to dispute known facts to bring new evidence to be scrutinized to challenge if they disagree with the facts. A good-faith editor would not say "demonstrate consensus" to someone trying to correct to say "the earth is sphere" for the earth's wiki. Unbiased6969 (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much nothing in this WP-article is noncontroversial. If two or even one editor reverts you, the whatever is not uncontroversial (or at least not improvement) in their eyes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you would think that a topic about a breed would be uncontroversial, but unfortunately for those with an bias and are unable to remove themselves from it when making editing decisions, any information that goes against that is controversial, even if it's the mainstream viewpoint. This page has semi-protection for that very reason, because a lot of people rather use this page to push their agenda than to work towards wikipedia's goal of presenting the mainstream viewpoint of academia and reputable organizations on the topic. Also, are you insterested in looking over the heading topic and remdering your thought by chance? Gives us another set of eyes. Unbiased6969 (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Seems obvious that what should happen is it should be reworded to "Pit bull terriers were originally bred for bull baiting and dog fighting", because that is what is supported by the source _pbp 20:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's the best solution. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  Except that historically, it was the Bull Terrier that was originally bred for blood-sport by mixing the Old English Bull Dog with the Old English Terrier. The APBT did not exist until immigrants to the continents brought these dogs over and began breeding them for different purposes. Bull Terriers were originally bred for bull baiting, would be factually correct. However, to mention that bull terriers were originally bred for got fighting in the pit bulls wiki page, without also mentioning the subsequent breeding that took place over the last 100+ years, doesn't provide a NPOV. The reader is left with an incomplete history of the pit bull breeding tree that skews them towards a negative connotation. The NPOV, in my opinion is to recognize their history coming from a fighting ancestor, but then also recognize what the UKC and AKC already do, which is they have been bred away from those traits, but still can exhibit them, so socialization on young pit bull pups is important. Unbiased6969 (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  How about deleting "...and dog fighting" from the proposed sentence? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  The source, Bini et al. in Annals of Surgery [8] makes it clear that pit bulls (not "Pit Bull terriers") were bred for bull baiting and dog fighting. The complaint that it was referring to Pit Bull Terriers specifically is a different source, Gunter et al., which has since been removed. Don't confound two different sources. If you would like to restore the text sourced to Gunter et al. that said something to the effect that Pit Bull terriers (specifically) may attack other animals because of their dog fighting heritage, or whatever that specific line was, then that is okay with me. Geogene (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think the AKC and UKC are more reputable sources for breed information than a medical research paper. It appears to be behind a pay wall, but did they source where they obtained that information since it's outside their field of study and expertise?

  I wouldn't cite a mechanic on the best way to cut an incidion, just as i wouldn't cite a doctor on what part fails the most on a 2005 integra. Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think peer reviewed journal papers about dog bite injuries are more reliable than the AKC, an organization that exists to cater to the commercial interests of dog breeders. Geogene (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You mean the same breeders that breed the dogs that are the very subject of this wikipedia article? I think you're in the minority there. Most minds would trust a breeder on the history of their dog breed than a doctor... but hey, maybe I'm just way off based here. Anyone else care to give their judgement? Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the AKC is a commercial organization non-profit that advertises purebred dogs and advocates for the commercial interests of dog breeders. It would be like citing Boeing, or better yet, a Boeing lobbyist as the best source for whether the 737 Max is dangerous or not. Here's an example of an opposing advocacy group (HSUS) alleging that AKC lobbies for commercial dog breeding at the expense of aniaml welfare. [9]. Geogene (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You seem to have a very different view[10] of the AKC when you are choosing to accept their affliation when it work for your argument in this dif? Care to elaborate why AKC affiliation bring her any authority on the topic and now the AKC is just a organization that exists to cater to the commercial interest of breeders? Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  No, I didn't. And it might be better if you would stop personalizing content disputes. Geogene (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Red herring. The AKC may have terrible political view points, but their view points are not the topic. I am not arguing to rely on them for moral or legal opinion on animal law. The topic is whether they're an authority on the topic of dog breeds, which you seemed to support that they were in the diff provided above from a conversation with another user. Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  No, I said that Coile is an authority on dog breeds. And this is off-topic. Geogene (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Breed clubs are not the most reliable source for breed history. The Governing Council of the Cat Fancy has plagiarised Wikipedia twice and the Ragdoll club claims that the breed was born in a laboratory. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  So you are saying that because Cat Fancy plagiarized and exhibits claims then the AKC is not reputable? This seems to be an indictment on Cat Fancy that is irrelevant to the reputation or reliability of the AKC.

  One reasonable would not say, Doctor A peddled vaccine conspiracy theories, so doctors are not a reputable source when it comes to vaccine information.

  WP:DOGS/RS uses AKC to determine whether a breed is notable. They also do not list the AKC unreliable on that list. Furthermore, the one source that is determined to be reliable[11] by Cornell University, lists the AKC as reliable for breeding information. Unbiased6969 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also, not to get lost in this is the fact that I did not just source the AKC, but also Briticanna Pages for multiple breeds like this[12] where they state the same thing as the AKC, which is that they're ancestors were bred for fighting, but they have since been bred for a more stable temperament. Lastly, WP:DOGS/RS also states that

  • Kennel clubs are generally considered reliable sources for breed standards, number of registrations, member clubs, and information about themselves such as the conditions of accepting a breed into their registry.
  • Kennel clubs and breed registries can be used to add specific details about the breed’s history to an article but corroboration by secondary sources is encouraged.
  • Sources should be considered reliable. If in doubt, seek consensus.

  I adhered to their second point, which is encouraged, but not required, when I cited Briticanna as well. Its in their encyclopedia so a topic like their history shouldn't be controversial. Unbiased6969 (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  >One reasonable would not say, Doctor A peddled vaccine conspiracy theories, so doctors are not a reputable source when it comes to vaccine information.

  No, but it's reasonable to say that therefore a lone doctor's opinion is not inherently reliable.

  >WP:DOGS/RS uses AKC to determine whether a breed is notable.

  That's not policy and that's just for recognition.

  >Furthermore, the one source that is determined to be reliable[16] by Cornell University

  From the top of that document.

  >No endorsement is intended nor implied by listing websites here.

  Seems like the opposite to me.

  >Kennel clubs and breed registries can be used to add specific details about the breed’s history to an article but corroboration by secondary sources is encouraged.

  Yes, they're a primary source that should not be relied on when reliable secondary sources exist for any claims about the history. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, which is to day Cat Fancy is not reliable. However, it says nothing about the AKC. Its also title recommended sources, so just making it on that list says something about the source. I personally wouldn't some things on a recommended list that shares my name it it wasn't quality. I cant speak for the author, but I can speculate that its likely that disclaimer is meant to avoid making it appear the university is endorsing a source. The secondary sources are the Britannica pages for the various breeds i mentioned. They also say the same thing about the various breeds that pit bulls encompass. Pit bulls were bred from fighting dogs, not bred for fighting. There is no mass effort by breeders to breed them for fighting, and hasnt for many many years. Unbiased6969 (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry I missed this. I don't believe omitting the dogs fighting ancestors would benefit the reader. Just as I also don't believe it benefits the reader to omit the last 100+ years of breeding the breeds have went through either. A NPOV, in my opinion, would be to mention both. They started were started from the ancestors of dog/bull fighting and have been breed to be family dogs. However, some can exhibit the former traits, so socialization of pups is important to avoid those traits. Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Amid all the arguing about kennel clubs, I feel like we've lost track of the question of how to write this sentence. Aside from a single editor, I'm not seeing much interest in expanding the amount of text to cover the historical progression of breeding with respect to tendency to fight, but maybe other editors are interested. If not, that brings us back to the sentence "Pit bulls were originally bred for bull baiting and dog fighting." I'm seeing arguments both for and against changing it to "Pit bull terriers", and for and against including "dog fighting" in addition to "bull baiting". How do we decide this? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I already removed the source and statement in regards to the pit bull terrier issue. The current sentence is based on another source. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  OK, thanks. So I think that means we should stick with just saying "Pit bulls". Is there still a reason to remove the part about "dog fighting"? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm actually not sure this source says pit bulls were bred for bull-baiting. It's a paywalled source so I cannot copypaste the specific phrase but it says they were descended from 'butcher's dog' which was developed for bull-baiting.

  It does say the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and American Pit Bull Terrier are descended from fighting dogs used in Staffordshire shortly after the bull-baiting ban. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ditto on the pay wall issue. However, it would be inaccurate for that source to say it as shown by both AKC and Britannica for several of the breeds that fall under the term pit bull. There is sufficient sources available to refute any claim they were bred for fighting because they weren't. That breeding stopped over 100 years ago and they have been bred for other purposes now. I'm on mobile so I can't link sources, but they're above. Unbiased6969 (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  As an alternative approach, how about changing the sentence to: ""Pit bulls were originally developed from dogs that were bred for bull baiting and dog fighting."? I think that might capture the distinctions that editors are looking for. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think that'd be fine, the source itself doesn't seem to claim modern breeds were bred for fighting. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I would say it would be a much better improvement than currently exists and reflects accuracy. Unbiased6969 (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Did you want to update the article with that, or would you rather I do it. Thank you and Traumnovelle for your discussion. Unbiased6969 (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  You can do it yourself. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is this the paywall source you wanted? [13] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, bit of an odd place for it to be hosted. Under the "Characteristics of the Pit Bull Breed" heading is where it talks about the pit bull. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  And reading what it says there, I think the revised sentence reflects the source quite well. Thanks, everyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2024

The third paragraph under "Breed-specific legislation" includes the clause "and the American city of Miami" in a list of jurisdictions with "pit bull" bans, but this ban was removed in 2023. I recommend this part of the sentence be removed. (one source for info on this: https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/florida-law-lifts-ban-on-pit-bulls-in-miami-dade-county-17935093#:~:text=It's%20the%20first%20time%20since,7%2Dyear%2Dold%20girl.) Slipagyp (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Done Traumnovelle (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Slipagyp (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Nature Study in Staffordshire Terriers not being aggressive

Hi,

Regarding this edit and reversion, the edit comment given was: says Staffordshire Bull Terrier, not pit bulls. Also, it's a Primary study.

I agree that it says "Staffordshire Bull Terrier", which is one of the 4 breeds generally lumped into "Pit Bull", but this is a Nature paper, so I don't know how much more primary you can get. The actual quote from the paper is:

"To be noted, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which is one of the restricted breeds, for example, in Ireland2, was not among the most aggressive breeds in this study."

Perhaps the other editor was confused about the Ireland citation, thinking it to be the source for the "not aggressive" fact, where it was only the source for the fact that Staffordshire Bull Terriers are a highly restricted breed. This study itself is the source for SBT's not being particularly aggressive. The fact that the study notes the contrast between the restrictions and the aggressiveness is what makes it worthy of inclusion and faithful to the intention of the paper's authors.

May I therefore propose to reinsert the study with the fact, but we can clearly state in the text that this source is discussing Staffordshire Bull Terriers? Thank you. Louiedog (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, also, this study also mentions Pit Bull Terriers, saying:

“ 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). It should be emphasized, however, that while the prevalence of human-directed bites or bite attempts among Pit Bull Terriers may be only slightly above average, the severity of their attacks is probably affected by other traits (e.g., the size and strength of the breed, its reputed failure to give warning signs, and its reported tenacity when attacking) that may also have been selected for in the development of this “fighting” breed." ”

and also that Pit Bulls scored higher than average for aggression directed at unfamiliar dogs:

"Some breeds scored higher than average for aggression directed toward both humans 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 Terrier".

I'd like to find a place for this information in the article as well.

I don't believe I'm confused. As I said, it is a WP:PRIMARY source making a claim about Staffordshire Bull Terriers, not pit bulls. I am aware that Staffordshire Bull Terriers are a type of pit bull, are you aware that not all pit bulls are Staffordshire Bull Terriers? Also, the text you added, Regardless, studies on breed aggression do not place Pit Bulls among the more aggressive breeds seemed to go beyond the source, which said To be noted, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which is one of the restricted breeds, for example, in Ireland, was not among the most aggressive breeds in this study. There should be a WP:SECONDARY source for that, preferably a literature review.

The C-BARQ study is another primary source, and it still acknowledges that Pit Bull Terriers are prone to catastrophic mauling. It should be emphasized, however, that while the prevalence of human-directed bites or bite attempts among Pit Bull Terriers may be only slightly above average, the severity of their attacks is probably affected by other traits (e.g., the size and strength of the breed, its reputed failure to give warning signs, and its reported tenacity when attacking) that may also have been selected for in the development of this “fighting” breed." Geogene (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, sounds like we're in agreement. The question was is you had any objection to my proposed revised text?--Louiedog (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Since, there's been no response here, I've gone ahead and done a bit of a rewrite, breaking off the bite/aggression topics into their own sections, leaving a summary at the top. I have summarized the results of the 2008 Duffy paper and mentioned the 2021 Mikkola paper, clearly stating that they had only made statements about Staffordshire Terriers, as per your comment. Let me know if you find anything you feel I haven't represented faithfully in my edits.Louiedog (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What I mean is, since it says Staffordshire Bull Terrier, not Pit Bull, it shouldn't be in this article. There's a Staffordshire Bull Terrier article it could be added to. Geogene (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've got 3 main things to bring up going forwards:

1. I think the 2021 Mikkola paper's bit about SBT's is at least a bit relevant here, but I'm willing to forego it on the argument that it's a bit too tangential for our main topic in the spirit of compromise.

2. That leads to the next issue to be resolved - how to break the article by sections. Per your edit comment that this was "burying the controversy", I wanted to settle that concern first.

To my mind, the purpose of a lede is to introduce and define the subject, and summarize the gist of the detail that appears below. My issue with the now-current version of the page is that it's putting a lot of detail (201 words out of 388) on the issue of the debate over aggression, exact percentages of bites, consequences for insurance while ignoring the entire history section of the article. All that needs to remain is a high-level summary of dog bites, aggression, laws, and insurance, while specifics can be relegated to their own sections. Obviously, I liked the wording I had before:

Pit bull–type dogs have a controversial reputation as pets internationally, due to their history in dog fighting, the number of high-profile attacks documented in the media over decades, and their proclivity to latching on while biting. Proponents of the type and advocates of regulation have engaged in a highly contentious nature-versus-nurture debate over whether aggressive tendencies in pit bulls may be appropriately attributed to owners' poor care for and competency to handle the dog or inherent qualities owing to their breeding for fighting purposes. As a result of their reputation, Pit Bulls are often a target for breed-specific legislation, though the evidence for their being any more dangerous or aggressive than other breeds has been mixed and is contested.

but I'm open to any revision you'd want to propose.

3. Lastly, it seems absolutely worth mentioning that the 2018 Duffy paper clearly delineates dog aggression by target: strangers, other dogs, owners, and that while some dogs are just aggressive in all of the above targets, Duffy et al. have concluded that Pit Bills have a notably higher level of aggression when directed at other dogs. I'd also like to mention that Pit Bulls were also shown to be less aggressive than other breeds towards their owners (as it might go a far way to explain some of the pro-Pit Bull/anti Pit Bull debate and why people seem so invested in it. Obviously, this is my own speculation and not scholarly enough to be included).

Thanks for continuing to read posts and work with me towards improving the article to something we can both be reasonably satisfied with. Louiedog (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, previously other editors have not allowed sources in this article that are about specific individual pit bull breeds, and I generally agree with that convention. Also, I'm still opposed to adding primary studies about perceived breed aggression, especially when those are self-reported by dog owners.

The medical journal literature reviews that say that pit bulls kill the most people of any type of dog, and inflict the most catastrophic damage, are the best sources in this article, and I do not consider any lead section that doesn't mention that acceptable. Geogene (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

1. On including Duffy:

Also, I'm still opposed to adding primary studies about perceived breed aggression, especially when those are self-reported by dog owners.

We're already citing the Duffy paper in the version that's been allowed to stand and we've got another at least dozen of primary sources already in the article. Overall, the article does not overrely on primary sources. Our personal judgement about methodology is not generally criteria for inclusion, but we could specifically highlight the methodology by mentioning it in the text (e.g. "Based on C-BARQ surveys filled out by dog owners...").

2. How about just adding that to mine and calling it a day: "Medical journal literature reviews state that pit bulls kill the most people of any type of dog, and inflict the most catastrophic damage.[source1][source2]" and then later in the article we cite more details about aggression and bites, in their own sections?

3. How about my suggestion here? We're already using the Duffy source to support that Pit Bulls are more aggressive towards other dogs. How about including the additional information about towards strangers and owners? Again, we could qualify by stating that all three conclusions come from surveys of owners and kennels. Louiedog (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Okay 2. Maybe not that literal text (I haven't looked at the relevant sources in a while, and want to make sure it's accurate) but something like it. 3. Yes, that sounds good with qualifications wherever we're using Duffy. Geogene (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Very good, what do you propose for #2, in that case? I'd like to get to some final wording that we can include. Louiedog (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I want something like While some studies have argued that pit bull–type dogs are not disproportionately dangerous, offering competing interpretations on dog bite statistics, independent organizations have published statistics based on hospital records showing pit bulls are responsible for more than half of dog bite incidents among all breeds despite comprising only 6% of pet dogs. Some insurance companies will not cover pit bulls (along with Rottweilers and wolf hybrids) because these particular dogs cause a disproportionate rate of bite incidents. Dog bite severity varies by the breed of dog, and studies have found that pit bull–type dogs have both a high rate of reported bites and a high rate of severe injuries, compared to other non–pit bull–type dogs. to remain in the lead. You kept removing it for some reason. Geogene (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"Independent Organizations have published statistics based on hospital...only 6% of pet dogs" is not doing the reader any good. The 6% garbage "statistic" comes from dogsbite.org and animals24/7.org, both have been deemed unreliable[14] by WP:RS. There is no good argument to include data from sourced from unreliable sources.

WP:USEBYOTHERS is not a valid reason as it states "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims." WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, states "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content".

It stands to reason that if WP:RS already concluded that the source[15] for the ..."more than half...despite 6% of population" "statistic" is unreliable, then others quoting that statistic just for the sake of quoting it, without showing additional evidence to back it up, then it is unreliable and should be removed from the article. Unbiased6969 (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I know that you have some kind of vendetta against Dogsbite.org, because we've already had numerous unproductive discussions about it. Unfortunately for your position, these numbers are being cited in quality papers, such as Dog Bites in the United States from 1971 to 2018: A Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature by Bailey et al. 2020, in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, who say, Pit bull-type and German Shepherd breeds are consistently implicated for causing the most serious injuries to patients in the United States across heterogeneous populations, and this remained consistent across multiple decades....Furthermore, our data and others reinforce the suggestion that Pit Bull--type breeds have been responsible for a large subset of dog-associated maulings and fatalities over the past three decades. Citing a number of journal papers and not just Dogsbite.org (which is largely a distraction since no one is calling for citing Dogsbite.org directly in Wikipedia at this time). Geogene (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Red herring. All of these reference their "data". None of them validate it. Dogsbite.org data is still unreliable.

The data being questioned is their breed demographics and share of dog fatalities. None of these sources touch on either. Show me a study on breed data that shows the gen pop close to 6% for all pit bull type dogs. Then show me a study showing they're responsible for 60% of dog fatalities.

Until then, context matters. Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I need a statement in the lead that respects NPOV by recognizing the scientific consensus that pitbulls are among the most dangerous breeds of dog, in the sense that they cause most bites, fatalities, and the most severe damage. The claim that they make up 6% of the dog population is less important. Are you saying that you could play ball with that? Geogene (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no scientific consensus that they are the most dangerous breeds of dogs. One could argue that they are among the most capable of causing serious harm. The data seems to suggest that. However, that doesn't translate to being the most dangerous. Just because one dude is a massive 280lb MMA fighter doesn't make him an inherit threat. I hope that helps draw the distinction. You are jumping to conclusions that no one made with data that doesn't conclude that. Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I will also caveat that there is a valid discussion among breed identification by medical staff that is not being addressed for simplicity of the argument. But to achieve NPOV, any statement of the above should also disclose that the data collection methodologies have been shown to be unreliable in studies. Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No. Not going to use WP:PRIMARY studies that claim breeds are hard to indentify to "debunk" higher quality WP:SECONDARY sources in the medical journals. Geogene (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The medical journals are gold standard source for medical related injuries. No question. However, if the data collection methods that were used were through visual identification, then there is enough data[16][17] out there to question the reliability of the breed id reliability of said data. Human medical data is good for injury related information. Veterinary medical data is good for questioning whether breeds can be determined reliably through visual identification.

A true NPOV of the topic would be something like: Pit bull dogs have been shown to cause disproportionate amounts of serious medical injuries. However, these studies relied upon breed identification, which has been shown to be unreliable.

The reader can the research both and make their own determination. Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm not going to agree to using a vet school website dated 2016 to attempt to discredit a secondary literature review from 2020. That's OR. Geogene (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I know. I think we interacted enough for me to know that. However, you have no reasons, which is why none are listed. 2016 doesn't matter, there hasn't been any new data published about breed identification reliability, so its still the most recent academic research out there. If there is, please post it. The 2020 data isn't about breed identification reliability, but uses it as a method within its. Being that the most updated research on using breed identification shows its unreliable, that's a valid criticism of the 2020 study you posted. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid argument. Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, so are you staying it can't be included because it mentions one specific breed and not "pit bulls" in general?

I actually agree. This page should be about information specific to "pit bulls". So, should be cleanse the article of all mention of specific breeds rather than the umbrella term? If so, there are some breed restrictions that should be removed as they don't apply to "pit bulls"... Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Are we in agreement Geogene, or does this rule only apply to citations that make a pitbull type breed look good? Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The argumentative editor is pushing viewpoints that are off-topic for this webpage and harassing other editors. Asserting that "breed identification is unreliable" is beside the point. Even if that catchphrase were true, it wouldn't preclude using the available reliable sources that report breed specific data, statistics and information. We should not even consider using conclusions of alleged studies where "shelter workers made mistakes of identifying breeds in a small sampling of dogs, mostly mixed breeds" to make broad and sweeping assumptions that all other sources everywhere and at any time cannot possibly know actual breeds and that their data must certainly be wrong. Such insistences by Unbiased6969 are irrational and fallacious arguments. Wikianon3770617 (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Take it to the incident board if you have an issue. Not the place for it. Keep it on topic of the talk page please. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Totally on topic. You brought up unreliability of visual breed identification in this thread as an argument to support your viewpoints. 7 times. The subject is already covered elsewhere in the article, in context. However, that opinion is not widely accepted, per sources. Because of that, it is not necessary for users to evaluate every source through the lens of "visual breed id is unreliable, and they mention breed, so it must have been visual, and they must therefore be unreliable, and so we can't use that source". That is utterly ridiculous. Wikianon3770617 (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Your WP:ASPERSIONS are off topic and better addressed on another forum. Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This topic is not as controversial as it is in public opinon.

I think the primary debate friction is a lack of understanding of what a dog breed is, basic genetics, and basic statistics. A dog breed is a collection of traits. We arbitrarily classify certain sets of traits and call them dog breeds.

If any trait is actively selected for it will be more pronounced. However, if a trait is not selected for, it will fade out and be decided by natural selection. Likewise, if a trait is actively selected against, it will also of course fade out. See the Dog Breeding wiki for more.

A trait that was once selected for in the late 1800s but no longer is, it is not going to remain present 200 years later. Furthermore, responsible and licensed dog breeders actively breed out aggression in all large dogs.

It is true that there are backyard breeders which actively do breed aggression into pit bull type dogs, but that could be done for any breed of dog, they just choose pit bulls because of human related reasons. It is nothing inherent to pit bulls. And we know this because aggression is not a defined trait for any of the pit bull type breeds. So for example, a dog with the traits: Muscular neck, short coat, flat skull and aggression is a pit bull terrier. A dog with the traits Muscular neck, short coat, flat skull, and meek is also a pit bull terrier. Depending on where you get your pit bull, from a licensed breeder or a backyard breeder you may have an aggressive pit bull or a meek pit bull. It's possible, if not probable, that there are more aggressive pit bulls than other breeds because of how pit bull type dogs are the breed of choice for backyard breeders intentionally breeding aggression into their dogs.

Now that you are armed with this knowledge, it shouldn't be surprising that it is global scientific consensus that breed specific legislation is not effective.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The quality research generally lies in the effectiveness of breed specific legislation realm because that is where the money is being spent.

So now that i have addressed what a dog breed is, basic genetics, there's also a lack of understanding of basic statistics that probably contributes to most anti-pit bull opinions. I've seen various verbiage, but the statistic cited generally goes like this

"Pit bulls and pit bull mixes make up 20-60% of all dog attacks. While being 6% of the dog population."

There is absolutely nothing in this statistic that indicates genetic predisposition to harm. All it indicates is that there is an external influence causing pit bulls to be overrepresented. Insurance companies only care about the probabilities and are not interested in a cause or a solution so they will adjust rates appropriately or refuse to ensure. It’s natural for humans (and all mammals really) to have pattern recognition that results in fear, and when fear is involved all rationale tends to go out the window even for the otherwise sharpest of minds.

There is limited research on why the stat is the way it is, and what does exist is generally low quality or contaminated by interest groups. But it could be because low income families disproportionately represent pit bull owners, issues with the data collection / falsely labeling an offending dog a pit bull, backyard dog breeders (or dog fighters) flooding the dog population with aggressive pit bulls, the breed being the dog of choice for violent people and violent people's dogs are also violent, or perhaps also people who want a dog to train to be aggressive for guard dog purposes choose pit bulls because of their reputation and this leads to more bites. Personally I do not know, I think more quality research is needed to reach such a determination. Nevertheless, this is what any debate should be over and should include the nuances I have outlined in this topic. It's hardly a nature versus nurture debate like this wikipedia article suggests. EVOSexybeast (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

A trait that was once selected for in the late 1800s but no longer is, it is not going to remain present 200 years later. The founder effect implies otherwise. For example, here is an article [18] about a deleterious genetic problem in Clumber spaniels that has persisted from the founding of the breed in the 1700's up to today. Also, since illegal dog fighting is still very common, presumably some pit bulls are still being intentionally bred for aggression.

I don't intend to have a "debate" on this here, but if the dog breeding article says anything contrary to this, it is wrong. Geogene (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Quite right that our arguments such as "There is absolutely nothing in this statistic that indicates genetic predisposition to harm. All it indicates is that there is an external influence causing pit bulls to be overrepresented." are Original research and can't really be posted in this article but if EVOSexybeast has proposals for inclusion of sources that make those arguments and those sources are of good quality, those should be included. Louiedog (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Pit bull type dogs are a large collection of diverse breeds and do not have a small founder population, heck or hardly even a shared founder population.

The average age of onset for Clumber Spaniels with degenerative myelopathy is approximately nine years of age which makes it so that it’s difficult for breeders to select out before they breed. Aggression does not have this same disadvantage, and aggression is not defined by a single autosomal recessive gene like the SOD1 gene is for the source of the Clumber Spaniels defect. This is conjecture on your part with no evidence in support and is a plain rejection of modern genetics.

“Also, since illegal dog fighting is still very common, presumably some pit bulls are still being intentionally bred for aggression.”

Of course, I said that in my comment. It’s not a nature versus nurture debate, both sides of the pit bull debate are generally wrong in the most common arguments. I also would not get a pit bull type puppy (or german shepherd) from a shelter, as I know backyard breeders choose the breed to breed aggression into them and I won’t know who the breeder was. I always ask a breeder what steps they take to breed out aggression for any large dog.

There is higher quality and growing research about non-breed specific legislation and its effectiveness and I am working on a section for this article for it as I think this article lacks in that area. EVOSexybeast (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure seems like a lot of opinion and speculation in a comment and not much source on the actual topic at hand. You grabbed "founder effect" and slapped it in there like it provided anything meaningful. Dog and strange human/dog aggression at the genetic level would be exist in dogs pre-domestication from wolves. Its something that every breed has, not just one specific. In fact...

"Our findings show that canine fear and aggression that are directed toward strange humans or other dogs share variation that was present prior to the creation of dog breeds."[19]

So the attempt to use the founder effect to single-out a single dog breed for aggression is mute.

I agree, there is no need to debate this, unless someone has genetic studies showing otherwise. Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, those who are objective about the topic, there is nothing controversial. The academic consensus widely believes that environmental factors likely play a role in individual dogs attacking, and not genetics. However, much like vaccines are widely known by the academic community to not cause autism, you have conspiracy theorist that cling onto blog and bogus data that reaffirms their belief that they're dangerous.

Additionally, I wouldn't waste much time with this stat: "60% of all dog attacks despite 6% of population" garbage stats as if its fact. All you need to do to debunk that is go to the WP:RS archive[20] to see that its source has been deemed unreliable. Its garbage and not worth assuming is fact for sake of argument.

Lastly, as you may know already. There are individuals on this page that subscribe to the latter of my before mentioned. They exist solely on this page to WP:STONEWALL. So welcome to the pit bulls page, I hope you have better luck improving this page that others in the past. Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, the ultimate question is just sourcing. We can argue forever, but what we need to do is evaluate which sources are quality and relevant enough for inclusion and only convey that those stay. In that vein, what is the source of the "60% of dog attacks despite 6% of population"? The cited sources seem to the print book "Pit Bulls for dummies" that I can't check and a Time Magazine article that's citing a The Daily Beast article that's gone 404 and I can't bring up any source associated with this "Merritt Clifton", so this fact might need to be retired, unless we can find the original source of this claim. Louiedog (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Louiedog, Daily Beast archive is easily found. To find Clifton content, perform site-specific searches like "6%" or "census" where I see several sources to satisfy your curiosity. Wikianon3770617 (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The claim should at the very least be attributed given it is attributed in the Time magazine source. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The sources have already been evaluated. WP:RS and WP:DOGS have already concluded[21] that these websites's "data" is not reliable. I have the Dummies for book, and it adds nothing but citing the "data" from animals24-7 and dogsbite.org. In fact, the book calls them a scientific website. However, they are self-published blogs and hold no background in science, and who represent fringe theories. Every source that cites them just regurgitates their misinformation without adding any credibility.

The fact Time mentions them doesn't give them reliability, but only diminishes Times's reputation for reliability given they didn't do any fact checking before citing. WP:USEBYOTHERS states that "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims".

I don't see why the article should include WP:USEBYOTHERS to represent minority claims, with the sole reason is outside citation. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." Time is an otherwise reliable source, the dog bites topic is not related to the principal topic of its publications, so if the full context of WP:USEBYOTHERS is adhered to, and you add WP:CONTEXTMATTERS's part about using information provided in passing by otherwise reputable sources, then there is sufficient reason to not mention it in the article.

WP:DETCON states that the quality of the arguments determine consensus. I have not seen anymore of an argument for including other that just stating WP:USEBYOTHERS and saying Times is reputable therefore the source is. However, that argument lacks applying the full policy and fails to factor other policies as it mentions within it. Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Care to share an image of that page of the book so the rest of us can also read it, unfiltered? Wikianon3770617 (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

No, doing so would violate WP:CV. Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

"Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." Care to explain how that applies here? Geogene (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I will try to explain it further. What this guideline/policy is saying is that when an otherwise reliable sources is using a source in its publication, which said information does not belong to what that publications primary topics area, then it may not be reliable. Instead, editors should go to sources that primarily discuss the topic at hand.

So for example. Time does not primarily publish about dog bites or attacks, but are otherwise reputable. However, they cite a source like dogsbite or animals24-7. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states that the information cited by Time may not be reliable, so editor's should go to sources that primarily publish within that topic.

Now before you say "may not be"... yes. Because some sources cited are reputable. However, the community already determined that the source cited was not reputable[22]. So when you take WP:RS guidelines in totality rather than picking one, its clear that using Time's citation of animals24-7 or dogsbite.org is not reliable. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "may not be". Regarding the community already determined that the source cited was not reputable. I don't think that one discussion at RSNB that didn't even take USEBYOTHERS into account is binding. It's not as if the source has been permanently banned from Wikipedia, although you appear to believe that it is. Geogene (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Then I encourage you to bring it up with WP:RS if you feel differently and bring up WP:USEBYOTHERS and see if that changes the outcome. I suspect it won't but definitely don't think its a bad idea to do so. However, as it stands now, they were determined to be unreliable and when the all of WP:RS is applied. Its clear that their allowance in the article is problematic.

Unless you have a better argument as to why it isn't? Trying to have a honest dicussion about it before requesting admin edits. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

And why would I have to do that? Why don't you go to RSNB and see if your interpretation holds water? Geogene (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus on the sources was already reached. It is not me challenged that. An admin will decide the quality of the arguments here before making a determination. I am not concerned with the past consensus and feel it was correct. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The source certainly isn't reliable but the paper referencing it (although I think the quality of the paper is quite low after reading it) is reliable enough to include it there.

I have many issues with the source but from a policy perspective I don't believe there is any reason to oppose it. It is an article published in a reputable journal without any published criticism (at least that I am aware of).

I still think attribution should at least be included or mention that it is not an official nor medical estimate. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There are no published criticism because it exists within a medical journal where the focus and expertise is on the medical data. Not dog facts.

Had this been reviewed in the Veterinary Medicine Journals, then it certainly would have received some criticisms as not one study published by them has supported the conclusions made in it.

We now arguing that medical journals are reliable sources for breed related data over veterinary journals. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have veterinary journals that say that the medical journals are wrong? You haven't presented any. Geogene (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 October 2024

Change "proclivity to latching on" to "proclivity to latch on". Change "that it will no longer cover" to "that it would no longer cover". This article mixes American English and British English spellings. It mostly covers the United States but then uses British spellings like recognise, organise, organisation, criminalising, labelled. Wikianon3770617 (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Khan et al., Journal of Craniomaxillofacial Trauma, 2019

Source quote: The data showed that compared to other dog breeds, pit bull terriers inflicted more complex wounds, were often unprovoked, and went off property to attack....From our data bank, we found the predominant breed (as identified by the owner, witnesses, animal encounter documents, and so on) was the pit bull type of dog....This is most likely under-reported, owing to the challenges cited earlier regarding confirmation on the part of some owners who demurred or resisted identification of the breeds of their dogs. So that's an interesting tidbit, pit bull attack rates may be underreported because dog owners don't want to admit that their dog is a pit bull after it has attacked someone, for reasons that seem readily apparent. But how does this result compare with the existing literature? They continue: This tendency appears to hold true in most medical reports except when pit bulls have been banned the reporting health care system's regional jurisidiction (Also interesting, doesn't that imply that when BSL is implemented, the pit bulls are apparently re-labelled as some other breed?) They continue: The most comprehensive nonmedical data bank, which includes all media and police reports in the United States for nearly a 20-year span, lists pit bulls as the leading perpetrator of bites, mauling events, and deaths. The "nonmedical data bank" in question is Merritt Clifton of animals24-7 dot org. If it's good enough for medical journals, why isn't it good enough for Wikipedia? per USEBYOTHERS? Geogene (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I was actually just looking for the Merritt Clifton source cited in Time Magazine and it's 404. I google around and cannot find it anywhere. Unless you have better luck locating it, we're going to have to discontinue it as a reference, since it can't be verified. Louiedog (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. Geogene (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think WP:SOURCEACCESS is their argument. But instead WP:VNOT? It may have existed at one time, but there is no longer any way to verify the source, paywall or not. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't delete sources just because they're not available online. Geogene (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:USEBYOTHERS which says "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims." & then WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is why.

Medical journals, professionals are not primarily discussing the topic of dog populations demographics, dog attacks, breed types, or the efficiency of BSL policies. Its outside their domain.

They are certainly in the topic of discussing medical injuries resulting from dog attacks, long term impacts from injuries, and etc. But they are not authoritative figure when it comes to what kind of dog it was or how much of a % a dog breed represents of the total dog population.

They are simply citing another source in passing to present their data. Now, does that mean that their source cited is not reliable? Of course not, that source then needs to be evaluated to determine reliability. As such was done here[23]. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This looks to me like Wikilawyering to try to exclude any and all medical sources that discuss which types of dogs are causing the worst injuries. I don't think that's going to lead to NPOV content. Geogene (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)