Talk:Pit bull

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 12 as Talk:Pit bull/Archive 11 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 17 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaitlynn1015.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Oliviapalazzi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relationship with race

Pit bull ownership is popularly associated with black people (in contrast with other breeds, such as the Golden Retriever, which is associated with white people).

Perhaps just "In the US", or something? Benjamin (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Found another source. [1] Benjamin (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The second last paragraph of the history section already says the type becoming a status symbol in American gang culture, perhaps add a sentence to that paragraph saying something like A 2020 study conducted in the United States by the University of California, Irvine found that when asked what varieties of dog black people are likely to own, a majority of people guesses pit bulls or Rottweilers. (I filled out a few more parameters in the citation) The second source conducted a poll using an American Pit Bull Terrier, whilst representative there is a distinction.

I oppose having a separate section and I strongly oppose adding this to other breed pages, except the Husky none of the other breeds/types listed are American and all are incredibly common throughout the world. Cavalryman (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC).

@Geogene:, to respond to your edit summary, I just happened to link that particular post that mentioned it, but the survey itself wasn't about that in particular, as I understand. I agree that one particular campaign isn't especially relevant, but that wasn't what I was talking about in the first place. Benjamin (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Found another source: [2] Benjamin (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting that Guenther calls out the racism of animal shelters, but basically it's an opinion piece. She cites Bronwen Dickey's "Pitbulls: the Battle over an American Icon" which we discussed previously and found not to be a reliable source. Geogene (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Here's another interesting study on race and pit bulls. https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/32171-25-1-third-articlepdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazdeviloo7 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Another WP:PRIMARY opinion piece that only applies to the United States? Again, why do other countries ban these dogs? Geogene (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The study had 170 participants rating what dogs they associates with what gender and race. You seem to be derailling topics with injected statements. Please add value to the discussion.

I've read this before. It is not a study, it's an article in a law review. It cited a study where white participants were asked about what kind of dogs they associate with black people. The answer from the research they cited was that white people associate black people with dangerous dogs -- pitbulls and rottweilers. The author of the law review then presented an original legal theory that if the racist associations of the white people in the survey group were actually a factual description of black peoples' preference in dog ownership, then it might be illegal under the Fair Housing Act to ban pitbulls from housing. That's what this paper is about. This is not particularly useful as a source for much of anything, and it's really just Whataboutism. It makes no attempt at determining whether pitbulls are actually dangerous or not, or why the racist white survey group perceives pits and rotts as dangerous. Geogene (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Notable pit bulls

Would the notable pit bulls section work better as a bulleted list? I think so, because there is only one sentence about each dog and the last two entries especially look like they were written as if they were intended to be bullet points. Fyndegil (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I took a look, and it does seem it would flow better as a bulleted list. Minkai ^(rawr!) _{(see where I screwed up)} 23:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the "pop-cult" section, and my experience is that bulleted lists tends to encourage people to add unsourced/badly sourced crap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Look at it from the reader's persepective. Instead of a neat list, you have an unappealing wall of text that is tedious to read. Then again, a bunch of ^{[citation needed]s} would also detract from the quality of the article, both aesthetically and in terms worth to the encyclopedia. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 16:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite a wall of text just yet, but you have a point. How about century-paragraphs? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: What is a century-paragraph? Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 17:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I added paragraphs that happened to divide the dogs by century. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, Gråbergs Gråa Sång! Thank you so much! The paragraphs-by-century method makes the section easier to read and doesn't invited poorly sourced content. I'm glad we were able to defuse this conflict before it began. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 18:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks better now. I'm glad the community was able to come up with a solution better than mine. Fyndegil (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Tazdeviloo7, in this discussion we agreed on not using bullets in that section, so please restore the one-paragraph-per-century format. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I added bud the pit bull. Are we sure about not using bullet points? It looks much better.Tazdeviloo7 (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Prose is better for a WP-article when possible, and it's quite possible here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Btw, do you have a WP:RS that actually says that Pete (Theodore Roosevelt's dog) was a pit bull? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I added Pete. Looks like Dickey claims him on page 67 [3] I dispute the reliability of her book, actually, but it's being used as an RS elsewhere in the article. Geogene (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

She says "bull terrier". See also [4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

She says that in her book about pitbulls. Plus, Pete died in 1910, and the term pit bull apparently wasn't in use until 1919. Does this imply that pit bulls didn't exist before that? Seems unlikely. Geogene (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It's concievable that she could mention other dogs too, since pit bull is a fuzzy term. I'd prefer we had a decent source that calls him a pitbull, per WP-philosophy. Apparently Roosevelt called him a bulldog. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

This type of content is better presented as a bulleted list, just as we do in myriad other articles. We even do it as a table at times. Proper sourcing would still be required. -- Valjean (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Pop-cult sections are better in prose, like this [5] version. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, I added in a sentence about the contrast today from the 1st half of 20th century to help the prose flow better and give it some context.

Geogene Gråbergs Gråa SångLet's talk about stuff in talk 1st before deleting. I don't think edit comments are the best place for discussion. Bud from 1903 is a pitbull by the very definition of this wikipedia article, they called him a bulldog since he predated the term pitbull first used in 1927. If Bud isn't a pit bull, then we need to remove everything pre 1927 on this page including 19th century dog fighting or bull baiting. Tazdeviloo7 (talk) 22:36, February 16, 2022‎ (UTC)

Why would we remove content about dog fighting from this article about fighting dogs? That would be ridiculous. Geogene (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Tazdeviloo7 The WP-article says "However, a few jurisdictions, such as Singapore,[58] also classify the modern American Bulldog as a "pit bull-type dog". " That's not close enough. Get a source that says pitbull (or at least one of the not "occasionally"), otherwise you're into WP:SYNTH. Per WP:V, we can say that something is/has been called a pitbull if a WP:RS says so. To make an unkind comparison, genocides occured before the word was invented. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I note that for whatever reason (perhaps WP:PROPORTION) American Bulldog doesn't mention its' pitbullishness. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2021

In the sentence “ Pit bull-type dogs have a controversial reputation as pets both in the United States and 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” the “and their proclivity for latching on while biting” should be deleted, as the source cited makes absolutely no claims on that topic. Frankenmouse (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Frankenmouse (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See under "Dog attack risk": "Pit bulls are known for their tenacity and refusal to release a bite, even in the face of great pain." To me, this is equivalent to "proclivity to latching on while biting". General Ization ^Talk 09:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I moved that citation to the portion of that sentence that it supports. The statement is in the lede, so it summarizes the body of the article (and does not require inline citations); the portion you are objecting to is supported by citations in the body of the article. General Ization ^Talk 09:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2021

Suggest linking text "American Pit Bull Terrier" in first paragraph to existing wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Pit_Bull_Terrier Chpatton013 (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, disregard this post. I was looking at the second instance of "American Pit Bull Terrier", and didn't realize that the first instance was properly linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chpatton013 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. Merry Christmas. Cavalryman (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC).

Breed specific legislation needs updating

I updated the Breed specific legislation portion since the first line said that there were only 2 revisions of BSL. This is false since there's been at least 64 municipality repeals since 2018. I think this recent trend of BSL being repealed and outlawed in the US should be noted, there hasn't been any new BSL enacted since 2018 that I know of. Another user keeps claiming that the source I used (pitbullinfo.org) was biased since it is a pro pit bull website and keeps undoing my edits. I understand the concern, but the page I linked links to confirmation for all 64 repeals, usually local news articles. There is no better compilation of news articles on repeals, the website keeps the list up to date as well always sourcing the new additions. At least 64 BSL repeals in the US since 2018 is a well documented fact and not up for debate. Tazdeviloo7 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It isn't clear that pitbullinfo.org is a reliable source for anything in Wikipedia. If pitbullinfo.org is reliable as some kind of news aggregator, then dogsbite.org should also be unquestionably reliable. Also, some of these edits tried introduce POV wording, changing Widely reported pit bull attacks have resulted in to Widely publicized pit bull attacks have often driven the enactment of and replaced journalistic sources (eg, denver.cbslocal.com) with advocacy group sourcing (eg, Ohio Animal Advocates) [6]. It would also seem to worsen the article's focus on U.S. politics. For example, what about the new pitbull ban that comes into effect in Taiwan next month? [7] In fact, if these dogs are so wonderful, why do so many countries around the world ban them? Geogene (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

How is a link to a website that counts and links to a local news story for the jurisdiction of every pitbull repeal not credible? Dogsbite.org is definitely not credible, and I can explain why. This source is only talking about laws that were passed/repealed. This is objective fact. Either a law was or was not repealed and there is no bias as to the matter. Dogsbite.org is a blog where a user unfamiliar with the actual story makes a presumption of the breed, or relies on the opinion of a journalist who did not confirm a breed by genetic testing. There are countless examples showing that breed identification by looks is highly unreliable, so why are we comparing apples to oranges here? I agree, linking all 64 municipalities would be ideal, but do you really want 64 tags at the end of a sentence or just one?Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, A brand new account, created just for this discussion, taking a very partisan position in a controversial article, signing its posts. That's interesting. Geogene (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you going to argue the subject matter or not? Seems like you are more interested in silencing anything you disagree with than arguing facts. Additionally, why is wikipedia using a time article that's source is Dogsbite.org? https://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-pit-bull-attack-of-a-little-girl/ Source 11. All its sources are advocacy groups, which casts doubt in the articles credibility. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If a reliable source cited Dogsbite.org for a fact, that means that Dogsbite.org is probably reliable for that fact. It doesn't discredit the reliable source, it makes dogsbite reliable. Geogene (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I would call it lazy reporting. Seems like they either don't know how, or failed to, evaluate their sources. Also, using your argument, then pitbullinfo.org is reliable since they have also been cited by news orgnaizations. See:

https://www.newsweek.com/pit-bull-myths-facts-history-dogs-pets-1567290 , https://provincetownindependent.org/inner-voices/2020/07/23/the-bias-against-pit-bulls/

But just being cited doesn't mean something is credible. Instead, especially with advocacy sites, objective facts should be used. Like, was something repealed, or was it not?Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, who claimed these dogs to be so wonderful as you previously stated "In fact, if these dogs are so wonderful, why do so many countries around the world ban them?" We are discussing updating objective truths here and not opinions. I don't see anyone making this argument, so why are you putting opinions in people's words? The fact of the matter is, BSL is reversing is the US, so why not add it? If a BSL got passed in Taiwan, why not mention it as well? Seems like this trend, which is objectively happening in the US, seems to offend your opinions on pitbulls. Which begs the question, why are your opinions on pitbulls more relevant than objective truths? So you don't like the source, but you're okay with the statement that BSL is on its way out in the US, so long as all 64 sources are linked at the end of the sentence? They're news links, which apparently are reliable as you mentioned before.Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

That was a lot to throw out there so I'll do my best to address everything Geogene. The pitbullinfo.org website's compilation of news articles on BSL repeals is not reporting on a subjective matter like the breed of dog in a dog attack which dogsbite.org does. The breed specific legislation was repealed or it was not. There's no breed mixes or inaccurate breed identification to muddy the data. I can source all 64 individual repeals if need be. Also, the "POV" wording is irrelevant, they both say essentially the same thing. We can leave the wording as is, but the 2 BSL reversals needs to be removed since it's severely outdated(again, at least 64). The sources I removed were concerning the 2 repealed bans, they were news articles on the 2 repeals which were already covered in the pitbullinfo.org compilation. The Ohio Animal Advocates website was the only source I could find for the full unaltered American Bar Associations Statement 100 on breed specific legislation which is a great source for breed specific legislation in general terms. My other source was an archived 1987 Time Magazine cover & article on dangerous pit bulls which was supporting my use of "widely publicized". Finally, we should add the Taiwan pit bull ban coming next month. This is no place to debate the merits of pit bulls. No matter how much someone dislikes or likes pit bulls, the 64 ban repeals in the US since 2018 happened and the upcoming Taiwan ban is coming up. We should add both since they're highly relevant to BSL and pit bulls and objective facts. I suggest you add the Taiwan ban part since you know more about it.

Better sources, please Geogene (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

So you'd like all 64 links to each news article then? I mean, something can be types up that lists each place that repealed them with a news scource, but its going to eat a lot of page space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiased6969 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I added in 4 more sources on individual city repeals as a compromise. As far as the sentence "Widely reported pit bull attacks and media have largely resulted in the enactment of breed-specific legislation (BSL) in several jurisdictions", there is no better source than the American Veterinary Medical Association and American Bar Association already sourced. Tazdeviloo7 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

And that's overciting. One or two good, reliable sources is usually enough. Just not pitbullinfo.org, because it's not RS. Not a fan of sourcing that to the ASPCA, because they're another advocacy group, but I did see some reliable sources you used as well. Geogene (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

All the sources I listed were directly linked in the pitbullinfo.org source so if anything just keep that one. For objective facts like if a city has a BSL repeal or not, even a biased source is fine. Tazdeviloo7 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

No. Pay attention: do not cite that source. Listen to Geogene. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

No, let's delete pitbullinfo.org, and use the individual references therein if they are reliable. Let's not use pitbullinfo.org as a secondary WP:SYNTHESIS of those sources, because it's not reliable. Geogene (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Just how is this compilation of municipalities with repealed BSL by pitbullinfo.org not reliable? It's the most comprehensive and accurate I've seen on the subject. One or two articles showing a single city had a BSL repeal does not prove to me that there were 64 since 2018, but the pitbullinfo.org compilation with direct links to said news articles does. Tazdeviloo7 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems like Pitbullinfo.org is collecting WP:PRIMARY sources and doing their own synthesis to make their own WP:SECONDARY claim. This raises the question, why not just find a reliable source somewhere else for the claim, if the info has so much WP:WEIGHT that it needs to be in the article. And, how big are these municipalities, anyway? Geogene (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Per the WP:SYNTHESIS, "If one reliable source says A(single city repeal) and another reliable source says B(another single city repeal), do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C(64 repeals since 2018) not mentioned by either of the sources. There is not interpretation being considered on these primary sources, the 64 linked articles on each BSL repeal by pitbullinfo. These repeals are being done at a much faster rate than they were put up in the 90's and 2000's so it's very relevant to BSL as a whole in the US, it holds more weight than most of the BSL section currently. Some of the municipalities are big like Denver, Aurora, Kansas city, etc.. Tazdeviloo7 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, but then lets talk about this sentence and the source "A number of controlled studies have argued that the type is 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 6% of pet dogs.[11]" The 6% figure is objectively false, and was sources from animal24/7.org, a biased blog ran by one person with an agenda. Why is this source allowed to be used and not pitbullinfo.org? Seems a little hypocritical to have that up and not allow pitbullinfo.org. Response?Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Tazdeviloo7, if you're going to try and cite policy to old-timers like me and Geogene, please do us the courtesy of signing your messages. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Because that particular factoid from animals24-7 is being cited by a reliable source, Time. The article never cites animals24-7 directly. Geogene (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The Time article does in fact cite Animals 24-7 directly for the 6% figure. Quote from article: "Pit bulls make up only 6% of the dog population, but they’re responsible for 68% of dog attacks and 52% of dog-related deaths since 1982, according to research compiled by Merritt Clifton, editor of Animals 24-7"Tazdeviloo7 (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

If Source 1 cites an unreliable source, then Source 1 no longer is a reliable source.... The reliability of the Time article is reliant upon the sources used. Since it has been shown that Animals24/7 is unreliable and Dogsbite.org is also unreliable, then the Time's article become unreliable as well. You don't get to just cite anything and slap a Time's logo on something and it automatically becomes reliable. You evaluate the article based on the quality of the work and data collected for it.Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

That is, in fact, not how reliable sourcing works on Wikipedia. If Time is considered a reliable source, which of course it is, that means we believe that their analysis of the sourcing used is sufficient to cite them. --Equivamp - talk 23:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Denver has repealed the pitbull ban in 2020: https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/denver-animal-shelter/about/news/2020/denver-voters-repeal-pit-bull-ban.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.169.75 (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Pitbulls 6% of dogs in US reliable source?

In the introduction, the phrase "despite compromising 6% of pet dogs" is used and it references this Time Magazine article as a source. (Side note, the KFC debacle which the article focused on turned out to be a hoax.) The 6% is attributed in the article to Merrit Clifton, editor of Animals 24-7 which is his personal blog.

The 6% statement is in contrast to this quote from the American Medical Veterinary Association "...the number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known, because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed, and existing licensing data is then incomplete. Breed data likely vary between communities, states, or regions, and can even vary between neighborhoods within a community."

I don't think the source the 6% is reliable. Tazdeviloo7 (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Its objectively not. That whole Time article should be scrubbed as its very irresponsible reporting as citing a blog is not a "source". Love to hear an argument for keeping it though.Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The 6% figure is also found in Pit Bulls for Dummies, [8] which seems to have been written by a dog expert, and has been used as a source in this article since at least 2013. Geogene (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

You are not going win this. Just because Pit Bulls for Dummies chose to use a personal blog and "evidence" gathered by one person as a source does not mean that the source is valid. It is an advocacy site, and to allow animals24/7 and not pitbullinfo.org on the grounds of being an advocacy site it purely hypocritical. Especially when Radio Canada already dunked on animals24/7 showing its trash data here: https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/802064/donnes-non-scientifiques-anti-pitbulls go ahead and translate to English and give it a read. Also, if your arguement for keeping a source is "its been used since 2013", then it needs to be removed as that isn't an actually argument for the reliability of the source. I can point to so many things that were considered to be factual at one point and then disproven... education evolves and refusing to remove a source simply because its been used already is irresponsible.Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

You are not going win this. You're starting to sound kind of biased, Unbiased6969. I already pointed out that there are two different reliable sources already in use in the article that cite that factoid. Geogene (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a bias for objectivity. Got me. What is the actual argument for using animal24/7 as a source. Not who cites it, but the quality and the quantity of the data collected. Where is the argument for that? I also take it you did not read the RadioCanada article, so I must ask, why are you arguing this if you refuse to read sources?Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion can go anywhere until you recognize that animals 24/7 is not being used as a source in the article. Geogene (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Animals 24-7 is being used as a source in the article for the 6% figure. Quote: "Pit bulls make up only 6% of the dog population, but they’re responsible for 68% of dog attacks and 52% of dog-related deaths since 1982, according to research compiled by Merritt Clifton, editor of Animals 24-7, an animal-news organization that focuses on humane work and animal-cruelty prevention."Tazdeviloo7 (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Then I guess I will go to get outside opinions to settle the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiased6969 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It certainly puts the dog bite deaths figures into perspective, considering just two breeds, pit bulls and Rottweilers, account for 2/3 of those deaths. -- Valjean (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Whatever the true pit population really is, it doesn't seem to be particularly controversial in medical journals that pits, along with rotts and German shepherds, are the main cause of serious dog bites. [9], [10]. Geogene (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Except that the true likely % of the population for pitbulls is around 20% and saying 6% cause 53% of deaths makes it sound far more menacing that 20% of the population causes 53% of the deaths. Ignoring the accuracy of the % of death claims as that is a whole other argument. It is propaganda pushed by a blogsite that you are perpetuating on a website that is supposed to be objectively actual data. Use actual sources for this 6% and not a Time Magazine sourcing Aniamls24/7 for that 6% Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is using actual sources. Where are you getting the 20%, since earlier you claimed that nobody knows how many pits there are? Geogene (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is using Time, which is using Animals24/7, so therefore, the Article is using Animals24/7 as the 6% is data originating from Animals24/7 and not something the author of the Time article came up with from her own studies. I don't see how you cannot see this. Here: https://www.pitbullinfo.org/pit-bulls-population.html Specifically under the 20% population estimate heading, where they include their source data and analyze how they came to 20% using source data like AKC breed registration and cross referencing it with shelter intake data. No one is claiming its the bible of breed data as it has some criticism that I could throw at it, but its objectively the best analysis of the population of pitbulls there is. That is until the pet industry releases their proprietary surveys that have probably spent a lot of money one determining the true breed shares. Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I see. You want to replace Time with pitbullinfo.org. I don't think that's reasonable. Why did two new accounts come here to start citing pitbullinfo.org at the same time? Geogene (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice strawman, I never said I wanted to replace it. I just have been arguing that the Time article should not be cited as it sources Animals24/7 for its credibility. If you think I am this Taz person, feel free to report me to administrators so they can inform you that you are woefully wrong. I can see you are more interested in gatekeeping your opinion and less about bettering the wiki page. I will see outside opinion and proceed accordingly. Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see this topic has already been discussed previously [[11]] with the community by in large labeling animals24/7.org and dogsbite.org as unreliable. Being that the Time article is quoted for the purpose of the bogus 6% stat, which originated from animals24/7.org and dogsbite.org, and not from the author of the Time's article, then its irresponsible to include it as a source on the wiki page and needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiased6969 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

From Fatal dog attacks:

the data indicated that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998, and followed with "It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."

-- Valjean (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

How is this in anyway relevant to the discussion of Time being a reputable source being that it is sourced from Animals24/7 to determine its data on population percentage and attack percentages.Unbiased6969 (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Unbiased6969, it is relevant to the "deaths" part of your statement above: "Except that the true likely % of the population for pitbulls is around 20% and saying 6% cause 53% of deaths makes it sound far more menacing that 20% of the population causes 53% of the deaths." That 53% seems to be off, unless it's only for Pit bulls, with Rottweilers accounting for the remaining 14% of the 67%. I don't know the distribution of the numbers in that 67%.

Are you confusing one dog in twenty for 20%? If pit bulls are 5.8% of all dogs in the US, this means that roughly one dog in twenty is a Pit Bull.[12] (I'm not saying that's a RS.) This next source seems to be way off in several ways, and it definitely tries to minimize any connection between danger risk and pit bulls: "According to statistics, there are approximately 18 million pit bulls, or 20 percent of the larger dog population, owned in the United States. Many dog organizations want to make clear that the few bad actions of humans with pit bulls should not reflect on the breed of the dog."[13] Note that's for "of the larger dog population", not of the entire dog population, and it puts the blame on owners, ignoring the genetics and statistics for the dogs. Genetics are a powerful factor that should not be ignored.

It appears that there is a significant amount of whitewashing activitism by pit bull breeders and fans, rendering their websites, articles, and books unreliable for accurate information. That means we must stick with proven attack and injury statistics from official sources, such as the blurb I quote above from the 2000 study by CDC, HSUS & AVMA:

"A joint project between researchers in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), this study published in 2000 evaluated 20 years (1979-1998) of fatalities by using 18-years of data collected previously for similar studies, newly identified data from media reports for 1997-1998, and a database from HSUS. The purpose was to summarize breeds associated with reported human DBRF during a 20-year period and assess policy implications."

It would be nice to know the real percentage of pit bulls in the U.S.A. Living in hillbilly country (lots of violence, drugs, ignorance, anti-authoriatarians, Trump supporters), I see many pit bulls (we go for walks with a ski pole, bear spray, and a 9mm because when they get loose, they attack us and our dogs, so we're fighting for our lives), but in urban areas they are far fewer. 20% sounds reasonable around here, but not for the country at large. Ownership also says something about a certain class of people that gravitate toward owning them (there are of course many other types of people who own them). In Europe it's often bikers and other violent groups, just like in the U.S.A.

They are banned in many of those countries, along with other dogs, such as Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Fila Brasileiro (see Dangerous Dogs Act 1991), with a reputation for having a genetic "attack hair trigger" (my words). They have been selectively bred for that characteristic, some for hundreds of years. Like all dogs, they are loyal, loving and wonderful under normal conditions, but under stress they will attack whatever or whoever is closest. They can't deny their own genes. Our neighbor's pit bull ripped off a front leg of its chihuahua bedmate when it was stressed by a dog on the other side of the fence. Really sad. -- Valjean (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, glad you can recognize the Humane Society as a reputable source, something we can both agree on. Glad you also seem to accept the AVSAB as reputable. Perhaps you should read this link here and more specifically this section:

"The AVMA reported in 2012 that approximately 46% of dogs in the U.S. were mixed breed. While there are purebred “bully breeds,” (such as the American Pit Bull Terrier,

American Staffordshire Terrier, etc.) most dogs referred to as “pit bulls” are merely individuals with a common general phenotype (or appearance). Thus, an additional concern regarding BSL involves accurately identifying breeds or mixes that presumably fall under the

restrictions. Visual identification is not reliable. Presumed breed identification is often made by neighbors, public officials, law enforcement, reporters, etc.—not necessarily by people who work with animals—and even those professionals may not know."

So the original topic about the 6% making up more than half of dog bite incidents is, at best is backed by errored data from animals24/7. In addition its in direct conflict with data collected in Colorado, which found that Labrador Retrievers were most often in breed incidents at 11.3%. Here is a link to a summary of the study done by the Coalition for Living safely with Dogs, in partnership with the Colorado Association of Animal Control Officers and the Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs.Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

There's also the issue that if Animals 24-7 on the 6% figure is valid because it is quoted in other non-academic publications then does that make pitbullinfo.com's 20% pit bull population figure valid as well? Like the Animals 24-7 source, it is quoted by other publications such as forevervets.com, petkeen.com and hkrtinc.com. Unlike Animals 24-7, pitbullinfo.org is open about where they got their population figure from, ASPCA shelter data that they directly link to. Tazdeviloo7 (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I found the Pitbulls For Dummies pages where they mentioned 6%. Again, they were sourcing Animals 24-7 which is a blog, not academically backed. On the contrary, the American Veterinary Medical Associaton on page 5 of their own report states "there is no reliable way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed in the canine population at any given time" . Tazdeviloo7 (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, Unbiased6969, Geogene Filed a new dispute resolution on this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Pit_Bull — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazdeviloo7 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Dogsbite.org being used source 40?

Used to cite this opinion "Pit bulls are known for their tenacity and refusal to release a bite, even in the face of great pain." Known by whom? If you are claiming pitbullinfo.org cannot be used as it is an advocacy site, then I'd love to hear the argument for this. Anything other than I am a hypocrite is disingenuous. Geogene quite literally said in his first response to BSL "If pitbullinfo.org is reliable as some kind of news aggregator, then dogsbite.org should also be unquestionably reliable". Consequently, if dogsbite.org is reliable enough to be cited on the wiki page, then so should pitbullinfo.org. Regardless how it may hurt your opinions. Quite literally, any mentions of either Animals24/7, Dogsbite.org, or Pitbullinfo.org should warrant inviting all being used as sources, or none. Quit with this picking and choosing based on your beliefs. Remove them all, or or include them all.

Mind you, your argument they have been cited by news is not a winning argument as so has Pitbullinfo.org. Who cites you doesn't determine you reliability. See following links for pitbullinto.org articles: https://www.newsweek.com/pit-bull-myths-facts-history-dogs-pets-1567290 https://provincetownindependent.org/inner-voices/2020/07/23/the-bias-against-pit-bulls/

Additionally, no organizations are quoted more about this topics than the ASPCA and Humane Society, so if the amount of times someone uses a source in their media as a source then those 2 organizations trump any other on this topic, so why do you reject those 2 organizations, but accept dogsbite.org and animals24/7.org?

Nevermind, I see this topic has already been discussed previously [[14]] with the community by in large labeling animals24/7.org and dogsbite.org as unreliable. These sources should be removed to improve the quality and objectivity of the information provided by this page. Unbiased6969 (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Newsweek isn't generally reliable, per WP:NEWSWEEK. The fact that pits "are known for their tenacity and refusal to release a bite, even in the face of great pain" doesn't sound particularly controversial, even if some problem is found with current sourcing, it seems unlikely that would be dropped from the article for long. Geogene (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Generally. Meaning it can be. If the statement is so easy to to prove, find a source other than dogsbite.org or remove the source, which has already been established as unreliable. Newsweek is more reliable, so I really have a hard time seeing why you are arguing in favor of excluding Newsweek, but including dogsbite.org, unless it's because it conforms to your bias on the topic.

Additionally, you yet to address under your own words why dogsbite.org should be included, but not pitbullinfo.org. As you stated earlier, you have an issue with the reliability of advocacy sites like ASPCA and Humane Society, so why is dogsbite.org the exception? Unbiased6969 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll word this more directly: it's not reliable in this instance until you get consensus that it is. Geogene (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

There is already a concensus that dogsbite.org is not reliable. What is the argument for continuing using it at a source then?

I will tell you right now, when I can edit, I am going to remove it as a source. If you think it should be used as a source, you can go try to get your own consensus that it is reliable. Right now, I have already shown that the consensus is with my opinion that dogsbite.org is not reliable. Letting you know in advanced so you can have time to attempt to get a consensus. Unbiased6969 (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable sources and data

Important facts to consider, and why this article and the dog bite articles need to be changed/updated because they are based on faulty statistics:

1. Pit bull is not a breed of dog, it is "a type of dog descended from bulldogs and terriers".
2. The Veterinary Journal study, Inconsistent identification of pit bull-type dogs by shelter staff, further confirmed in their conclusion that: The marked lack of agreement observed among shelter staff members in categorizing the breeds of shelter dogs illustrates that reliable inclusion or exclusion of dogs as ‘pit bulls’ is not possible, even by experts. This has special significance to the topic of restrictive breed regulations, since such regulations are based on the faulty assumptions that (1) certain breeds or phenotypes are inherently dangerous, and (2) that those breeds and their mixes can be identified by observation.
3. Talk:List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States – these types of discussions are not new, and yes, we have serious issues with BSL advocates and haters of "pit bull types".
4. The AKC has stated that 'Pit bull' is a term commonly used to describe a particular type of dog–many being of mixed breeding—that has some ancestry relating to breeds in the United States. … 'Pit bull' is also used sometimes to describe mixes or breeds not registered with the AKC. AVMA believes That's partly why the CDC stopped collecting breed data in dog-attack fatalities after 1998. See The dangerous dog debate.
5. CDC stated sometime around 1998: Because news media accounts can inaccurately report breeds of dogs involved in DBRFs, only breed data from the HSUS were used...
6. CDC data is in and of itself limited, and as it applies to this article as well as the dog bite article. following is #3 in the list of CDC's 5 limitations: Third, limited data are available on the circumstances of the event or the dog involved.
7. The Humane Society published an article that is relative to the unreliable results and listings of specific breeds. For example: ...and can lead to a false sense of community safety as well as welfare concerns for dogs identified (often incorrectly) as belonging to specific breeds.”
8. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (Oct 2019) Small Animal Veterinarians’ Perceptions, Experiences, and Views of Common Dog Breeds, Dog Aggression, and Breed-Specific Laws in the United States When participants rated the perceived bite risk associated with popular dog breeds, Chow Chows were perceived as the highest risk, with pit bull types categorized as a moderate risk.
   

I'm of the mind that the percentages need to be entirely removed from this article. Atsme 💬 📧 03:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Bite risk by breed from the literature review and bite severity by breed from our case series were combined to create a total bite risk plot. Injuries from Pitbull's and mixed breed dogs were both more frequent and more severe....Breeds vary in both rates of biting and severity. The highest risk breeds had both a high rate of biting and caused significant tissue injury. [15] Dog bite injuries to the face: Is there risk with breed ownership? A systematic review with meta-analysis Essig et al., 2019.

Most pediatric dog bite injuries afflicted male children (55.6%), ages 6 to 12 years (45.7%), by a household dog (36.2%). The most common offending breed was a pit bull or pit bull mix (53.0%). [16] Analysis of Pediatric Dog Bite Injuries at a Level 1 Trauma Center Over 10 Years Muñoz et al., 2021.

The AVMA and the Humane Society can have their own opinions, but the physical and behavioral differences between different breeds of dogs are a widely recognized fact of biology [17], and research into the proven relationship between dog breed and dog attacks continues. The 6% figure is reliably sourced; this is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Geogene (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

We aren't going to talk about how this is pretty strong evidence that this "over half of dog bites are caused by rots and pitbulls" trash data is in direct conflict from data from Farmers insurance, which owns 5.71% of the US marketshare[18] for homeowners insurance? Quite literally in the Pit bull article it states:

"In 2013, Farmers Insurance notified policyholders in California that it will no longer cover bites by pit bulls, Rottweilers and wolf-dog hybrids. A spokeswoman for Farmers said that those breeds account for more than a quarter of the agency's dog bite claims".

Having an insurance company with a significant share of the market claim that these 3 breeds (wolf-dog included) only account for 25% of their claims seems to be pretty good evidence that this over half argument is bad. Let alone State Farm owns 17.97% and will insure Pitbulls... Honestly, I am not even sure why you guys keep arguing for this bogus statistic from a unreliable source when quite literally, multiple sources can be used to disprove it, or at a minimum throw significant skepticism at it.

Also, you cite Pediatric Dog Bite Injuries at Level 1 Trauma Center Over 10 Years, but you fail to address that the study you cite relies upon people's opinions of the dog breed, which even by experts has been shown by Astme to be unreliable and inconsistent. Quite literally, no one has conducted an actual reliable study on dog bites and used gene testing to determine breed when doing the study. Pitbull is a term used to determine a look of dog, but not actually a breed. There are 4 common breeds associated with, but there are about 28 breeds in total that get mislabeled as pitbull commonly, including a Boxer. Even the AKC[19] states:

"Although there have been many studies on the effectiveness of BSL, there is no evidence to support the notion that some breeds of dogs are more inherently dangerous than others or that banning ownership of certain breeds lowers the bite rate. In fact, the American Kennel Club, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Animal Control Association, the American Bar Association, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, and a host of other respected national organizations oppose BSL and recognize the inequities and inherent fallacies of such laws." Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The AKC is not a reliable source for science or for public policy. If you don't like the sources from medical journals, you should take that up with their peer review boards. Your post is more WP:IJUSTDON'TLIKEIT. Geogene (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I love how you completely ignore the fact that insurance data, which data represents over 20 million people, completely goes against this flawed data that rots and pitbulls are responsible for over half dog bites. Why not address the criticisms of the data you want to use? Insurance data shows those 3 breeds account for 25% of their claims. That number is far from the percentage claimed by your unreliable sources. Also, all your arguments on here are WP:IJUSTDON'TLIKEIT.Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Another paper I was going to mention earlier about differences in purpose and behavior between dog breeds being a widely accepted scientific reality: Dog breeds have been selected not only for appearance, but above all for different behavior. The behavioral variation found today is staggering, with breeds specialized on, for example, herding, retrieving, guarding and hunting. [20]. And what kinds of problematic behavior do you think a reasonable person might expect a dog bred to fight would be known for? Geogene (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Dog aggression just like all other terriers. Pitbulls were never bred to be aggressive to their handlers, quite opposite actually given their ability to inflict damage with their strength. They're domestic dogs, so by definition they're not a threat to humans on a breed level; otherwise, they would be a massive public health issue, but the data doesn't support that. Individual dogs that are not socialized can be a danger to humans, but that is not breed specific. As far as genetics for Pitbulls, they are terriers, so they latch and shake their heads. Just like all terriers. It is quite literally the reason they crossed the Old English Bull Dog with the Old English Terrier. However, they are much stronger than other terrier breeds. However, past that there is no behavioral issues with the breed. Almost all Pitbulls are capable of being friendly to humans and other animals, so long as they are socialized at a young age. Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

And dog aggression is a good enough reason to not want them around for humane reasons, in and of itself. Comparing a 60 pound pit bull terrier to a fifteen pound Jack Russel terrier as if they present the same threat to people and other animals is disingenuous. Geogene (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, good thing its not your decision or all terrier would be eliminated I guess. You are also advocating for elimination of the breed in the talk page for that very breed. Why are you here since you are clearly biased and not capable of being objective on this topic? Also, you still avoiding addressing this like it's the plague:

"I love how you completely ignore the fact that insurance data, which data represents over 20 million people, completely goes against this flawed data that rots and pitbulls are responsible for over half dog bites.

Why not address the criticisms of the data you want to use? Insurance data shows those 3 breeds account for 25% of their claims. That number is far from the percentage claimed by your unreliable sources."Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Geogene - the first problem with that systematic review is rather obvious - pit bulls are not a breed, so what are they calling a "pit bull"? Relating it to a human instead of a dog, it's like saying a large human with a big mouth and a strong jaw bit the child. Who identified the human? Someone said it was a football player in uniform...and there starts the trend - football players are dangerous! Sorry but that's not much of an ID from where I sit. Secondly, a "retrospective chart review of facial dog bite injuries presenting to the University of Virginia Health System and Nationwide Children's Hospital. Additionally, descriptive data was collected from 240 patients over the last 15 years. Bite risk by breed was assessed by a literature search from 1970 to current." Analyzing a dog bite is not the same as analyzing static balistics - they're analyzing dog bites based on whatever prior information was provided about the dog bite incident, and the latter is where the review falls apart. Where did they obtain the so-called "literature search"? Where did the reports originate that claimed the bite was by a pit bull type, whatever that means beyond an open door of perpetual visual misidentification? It is established knowledge that people have been misusing the term "pit bull" for ages. All of the links I provided above substantiate it. Atsme 💬 📧 04:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The "what is a pit bull" argument is just a rhetorical game, one that's akin to a tobacco lobbyist asking, "What is cancer? There are different types of cancer, aren't there? Things other than cigarettes cause cancer, don't they?" Pit people know what pits are, or they wouldn't be selling five week old puppies on Craigslist. The dogs called or licensed as "pit bulls" are causing most of the dog bite fatalities; so it doesn't seem unreasonable from that that "the dogs called or licensed as pit bulls" should be regulated in some way. Geogene (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? Cancer is defined and you either have cancer cells or you don't. Its not subjective to someone's eye. Pitbulls is. Its quite literally a look of dog. Looks are subjective to the person. Lets stay away from false analogies.[21] .Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Cancer is defined you couldn't come up with a definition on the spot that would satisfy a lobbyist who is being paid to deny their product causes cancer. Pitbulls is [subjective] I already pointed out that dog breeds are objectively real, and cited it. Not sure why you think repeating things that have already been disproven is somehow helping you. Geogene (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Moving the goal post again. I'm not engaging in that Red Herring. Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a red herring, but I have a feeling you would engage in that. You're extremely argumentative, and nothing you're saying here seems likely to ever improve the article. All you've done is complain about reliable sources. Geogene (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You have 3 people, one outside party, arguing the sources and data are unreliable, but yet you call them reliable. I will try to get you to address this once again:

We aren't going to talk about how this is pretty strong evidence that this "over half of dog bites are caused by rots and pitbulls" trash data is in direct conflict from data from Farmers insurance, which owns 5.71% of the US marketshare[22] for homeowners insurance? Quite literally in the Pit bull article it states:

"In 2013, Farmers Insurance notified policyholders in California that it will no longer cover bites by pit bulls, Rottweilers and wolf-dog hybrids. A spokeswoman for Farmers said that those breeds account for more than a quarter of the agency's dog bite claims".

Having an insurance company with a significant share of the market claim that these 3 breeds (wolf-dog included) only account for 25% of their claims seems to be pretty good evidence that this over half argument is bad. Let alone State Farm owns 17.97% and will insure Pitbulls... Honestly, I am not even sure why you guys keep arguing for this bogus statistic from a unreliable source when quite literally, multiple sources can be used to disprove it, or at a minimum throw significant skepticism at it.Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not a vote, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and I've tried to avoid pointing out some issues with basic math that you're running into in your original research here. Geogene (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

No, but is done by consensus, which is done by holding a majority view point, not a minority. You actively try to avoid in discussing issues in my math? Then why are you here if not to participate in genuine discussion? Also, its not original research, its quite literally cited in the Pit bulls article and sourced... Unbiased6969 (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll jump in here on behalf of User:Geogene to explain the misinterpretation of the Farmers Insurance claim. To refresh memory, the claim is restated here:

"...Farmers insurance... owns 5.71% of the US marketshare for homeowners insurance..."

"In 2013, Farmers Insurance notified policyholders in California that it will no longer cover bites by pit bulls, Rottweilers and wolf-dog hybrids. A spokeswoman for Farmers said that those breeds account for more than a quarter of the agency's dog bite claims"

1. Farmers Insurance owns 5.71% of the US marketshare for homeowners insurance.

Marketshare typically refers to the percentage of revenue or sales in a market. There is no evidence presented that the demographical makeup of 5.71% of the marketshare is equally proportional in all aspects to the wider US population. In other words, the sample may not be representative of the population in relevant characteristics.

Why does this matter? If the 5.71% marketshare (which again does not translate to 5.71% of the US population nor is it known if it is representative of the population) is under-represented in pitbull/rottweiler/wolfdog ownership compared to the wider population, then of course we would expect the bite claims against pitbull/rottweiler/wolfdog to be lower than the wider population. It's even possible 5.71% of the marketshare represents much less than 5.71% of the actual US population.

There are many, many more variables but I think you get the point.

2. Those breeds account for more than a quarter of the agency's dog bite claims.

The number of dog bite CLAIMS is not the same as the number of dog BITES. An easy mistake to make, but an important distinction. The next point will explain why that is notable in particular.

3. In 2013, Farmers Insurance notified policyholders in California that it will no longer cover bites by pit bulls, Rottweilers and wolf-dog hybrids

According to FindLaw, the world’s leading provider of online legal information for consumers, in the event of an animal bite:

"an insurance company covers the expenses of a legal claim and any resulting settlement or judgment. It's important to understand just who pays for animal bites when a claim is filed. Depending on the specific situation, a legal claim resulting from an animal bite injury is often paid by an insurance company."

So insurance claims are normally only made when someone is injured to a particular severity. One would not be able to make a legal claim for a dog bite that did caused very minor injuries. So it can be assumed that dog bite CLAIMS are representative of more severe dog bites.

Why does this matter? If pitbulls (and rottweilers, wolf-dogs) are over-represented in dog bite CLAIMS, then it stands to reason they are causing more severe injury. Which is the usual justification for restricting ownership of the breed, at least in countries where they are banned.

4. Now what can we actually deduce from this data? Without knowing the breakdown and characteristics of the 5.71% marketshare (the sample) COMPARED to the wider US population - not a lot. Only this; pitbulls (and rottweilers and wolf-dogs) cause injury to a degree that an insurance company won't cover them in California. By itself, very telling.

What you definitely could not do is use this statement/data to suggest pitbull breeds are LESS dangerous (read: likelihood to cause an injury to humans severe enough to warrant an insurance claim) than other breeds. In fact, it heavily suggests the opposite.

A fair and balanced inclusion would therefore be presented in the article something along the lines of:

"Pitbulls are over-represented in dog bites on human beings. According to Farmers Insurance, pitbulls, rottweilers, and wolf-dog hybrids represent at least 25% of dog bites severe enough to justify an insurance claim, while an analysis of all dog bites across the USA (including those not subject to insurance claims) estimate pitbulls account for up to 68% of dog bites."

I hope this lays to rest the silly claim that the Farmers Insurance position refutes any other statistics about bite risk (and severity). 2001:8003:ED10:B501:7D2B:86DC:E254:B9D4 (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• I'll jump in here on behalf of common sense, and hopefully lay to rest any future attempts to convince editors that an insurance company's premiums or their refusal to provide insurance to dog owners of certain breeds are good arguments to justify the inclusion of misinformation in this or any other WP article. Another ludicrous argument that is not supported by science is claiming that pit bull types are more aggressive than other dogs. The temperament and/or actions of an unpedigreed, mixed breed of dog, aka mongrel, should be judged on a case-by-case basis. To condemn an entire modern breed of registered purebred dogs based only on visual IDs has consistently proven to be highly flawed. It's embarrassing and sad to think a WP article may be contributing to such justification, or worse, fear-mongreling over a dog type that isn't even a bona fide breed–it's a descriptor. Sadly, innocent, modern purebred (pedigreed) conformation show dogs/family dogs are being sucked into this misinformation vortex, in part because of media hype & misinformation that stems from flawed reports (witness & victim accounts, visual IDs, exclusions). Over the past decade, science (DNA studies, and other scientific research) has provided far more accurate information about dog bites, dogs that bite, and breed types.
  1. CDC stopped listing breeds around 1995–1996; read the Editorial Note.
  2. Faunalytics, Battling A Bad Reputation
  3. JAVMA, The dangerous dog debate], "There are enormous difficulties in collecting dog bite data," Dr. Gilchrist said. "No centralized reporting system for dog bites exists, and incidents are typically relayed to a number of entities, such as the police, veterinarians, animal control, and emergency rooms, making meaningful analysis nearly impossible.
  4. AVMA, Dog bite prevention: Any dog can bite: big or small, male or female, young or old. Even the cuddliest, fuzziest, sweetest pet can bite if provoked. Remember, it is not a dog's breed that determines whether it will bite, but rather the dog's individual history and behavior.
  5. CDC, A community approach to dog bite prevention
  6. National Canine Research Council (NCRC): In fact, since studies have discredited visual breed identification (Hoffman, Harrison, Wolff, & Westgarth, 2014; Simpson, Simpson, & VanKavage, 2012; Voith, Ingram, Mitsouras, & Irizarry, 2009; Voith et al., 2013), any studies that rely on visual breed identification, including those that link DBRFs and breed, can no longer be responsibly cited in the developing literature.
  7. NCRC, Dog-Bite Related Fatalities: The authors report that the breed of the dog or dogs could not be reliably identified in more than 80% of cases. News accounts disagreed with each other and/or with animal control reports in a significant number of incidents, casting doubt on the reliability of breed attributions and more generally for using media reports as a primary source of data for scientific studies. In only 18.2% of the cases in this study could these researchers make a valid determination that the animal was a member of a distinct, recognized breed.
  8. AVMA Dog Bite Risk and Prevention: The Role of Breed
  9. AVMA, Why Breed-specific Legislation Is not the Answer
  10. Miami-Dade College, Breed Specific Legislation - Canines: Banned!
  11. IAABC Journal, Creating a Better Law to Protect People From Potentially Dangerous Dogs – When the pitbullwet was in effect, the public felt safe from dangerous dogs, and this led to less media attention on the number of bite incidents in society. After abolishing the pitbullwet, this changed rapidly. These dogs once again became the target of fear campaigns, leading the public to believe these dogs are more aggressive and dangerous than other breeds.
  12. Newsweek, 25 Myths About Pit Bulls You Should Stop Believing (2021)
  13. Nat Geo, The Most Feared Dogs May Also Be the Most Misunderstood (2016)
  14. Dogster, 12 Facts About the Pit Bull and Other Breeds Perfected in America (2016)
  15. DNA studies reveal that shelter workers often mislabel dogs as ‘pit bulls’
  16. Today, What is a pit bull? (2017)
  17. Science Direct, Journal of Veterinary Behavior (2018)
• And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Atsme 💬 📧 02:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Most of those sources aren't even reliable. Geogene (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Pit Bull lobby, allegedly not found in source

I'm trying to better understand how this edit happened [23]. When I searched "lobby" on my Kindle edition, I got seven hits, including, Pit Bull lobbies formed to oppose BSL, ultimately giving rise to the well-funded Pit Bull lobbies of today....The lobbies persuaded many states to prohibit BSL, but local laws can still override the state laws in some cases. and Pit Bulls are the only breed of dog to have their own lobby, Best Friends Animal Society [URL] which works to fight BSL and promote Pit Bulls as family pets....to the tune of more than $100 million a year Geogene (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

Please remove: "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 6% of pet dogs.[11]"

Source 11 sites a news article which sites an article that has been removed and is thus unverifiable. 108.214.9.38 (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Declined. Request doesn't acknowledge that source 12 exists, and there's no requirement in WP:V that sources have to be online to be usable. Geogene (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Latin for pit bull

Latin(pitbull) 2A02:C7E:3824:CD00:8987:FB0B:6B43:3594 (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps "puteus taurus", but don't trust me on that. Note, however, that pit bull is a Dog type, not a species like say Vulpes vulpes (in that sense, the pit bull is a Canis familiaris). Even if you get a latin name, it may not mean much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

What is a pit bull?

Regarding this [24]. Coile, in Pit Bulls for Dummies says that a common claim of pit bull advocates is that "there is no such thing as a pit bull". Coile answers this by saying, in part, related bully breeds bred to fight dogs are often lumped together, much as I do in this book. The term Pit Bull commonly refers to a family rather than a specific breed of dog. The family includes the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and their mixes. Coile is an expert who is affiliated with the AKC, has a Ph.D. in dog genetics (IIRC), and Pit Bulls for Dummies has been used uncontroversially in the article as a source since 2011. Geogene (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)