Talk:Pit bull

REMOVE Dog Breed Summaries (Unnecessary, Redundant)

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

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

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

"Lennox" section necessary?

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

Requested move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article is not focussed

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

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

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

Common breeding history

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

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

Should include the English Bull Terrier

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

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

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

Pitbull disambiguation page

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

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

Restored sections on breeds other then American Bit Bull

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fatalities (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poor Intro

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

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

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

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

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

Recommend removing National Canine Research Center section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several things stand out to me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karen Delise is a hack who spins misleading, illogical arguments. Her book, the pit bull placebo and her other studies, are a litany of logical fallacies. It is very hard to see this,though, when you are sympathetic to what she is trying to accomplish (which is reform the pit bull's reputation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.68.79 (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Dangerously misleading

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same dog can be registered with the AKC as an American Staffordshire Terrier and with the UKC as an American Pit Bull Terrier. This often occurs. There is no difference in these dogs. The AKC changed the name to remove the word pit and bull which have negative connotations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.68.79 (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Capitalization of dog breed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 2

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

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

---

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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

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

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

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

(--)

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

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

Species?

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

Recommend removing Clifton Report

The Clifton report does not meet WP:NOR.

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

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

There is no evidence to suggest that:

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

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

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

Recommend restoring Famous Pit Bulls section

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

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

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

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

Terrible

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

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

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

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

Ambiguous

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

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

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

double standard

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

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

deaths by dog maulings

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

Yes, pit bulls attacking infants is all about their insatiable desire to eat poop. Nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.68.79 (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Disputed section

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

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

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

Remove entire article

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

The person above seems wondrously unbiased. They should be allowed to write this wiki page on their own and perhaps even rewrite the entire history of the dog breed to their liking. I'm all for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.68.79 (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

I will only address the point related to temperament testing. The American Temperament Testing Society's (ATTS) breed summaries, which I assume you would reference, have been contested regarding their appropriate use in a wiki page. Mention of the ATTS was removed from the American Staffordshire Terrier page. If you read the discussion for that page it might help in decisions regarding it for this page. 76.92.68.79 (talk)

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

CDC Section Should be removed or at least rewitten.

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

Vandalism, but can't find it to edit

I see this in the opening paragraph: "Some airlines have placed restrictions on -blahblahblahblah pitbulls are very vicious- air travel for pit bulls."

But I can't find it when I attempt to edit it. Can anyone help? 24.176.73.136 (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The lead picture looks disingenuous

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

Popularity

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

File:AmericanPitBullTerrier.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:AmericanPitBullTerrier.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:AmericanPitBullTerrier.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Intro Line

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

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