Talk:American Bully

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noahchand08.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

General content

This article needs some serious help to be brought up to standard; it doesn't have any citations, and some pretty big pieces of it don't really make any sense. For example:

Outside of the breed standard dogs shorter or taller than named, and, more exaggerated dogs have been bred under the American Bully name. While some of these dogs are conformation quality, following the breed standard but not of the aforementioned heights are well bred, healthy dogs; some Micro and XXL+ dogs fall within this category.

I tried to chip in and clarify some stuff, but I'm reluctant to change too much because I'm admittedly not particularly knowledgeable about Bullies, and I'd hate to try paraphrasing something and wreck it.Rabdill (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Official UKC breed recognition

So this should be split back out, as the UKC now recognizes this as a formal breed. See the breed standard here. oknazevad (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Breed Lines

This dog resembles a heavily muscled American Staffordshire did any other breeds get introduced ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I will add the information that addresses the breed's origin Down time (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions about ‘recentism’

There are some topical, relevant changes and additions being made to this article. Having noted that one user added a section that was summarily removed by another, I have sought to remedy it with a half-way approach. Rather than removing changes altogether, please discuss here as per wiki guidelines.

While we might not like the changes being made, when they are made we need to respect them for what they are.

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe it’s necessary to have a list of every incident involving this breed. However, when there is a well-referenced addition (such as the one I added and which was appropriately added to other references in a section about the breeds behaviour), it should be allowed to stand.

I intend to revert the edit that has been made, but that is of course, unless there is a better way to include the information (which is a matter of fact). Chausettes (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Just adding one news story doesn't accomplish the goal, though. Nor does having a list of disconnected incidents, which would constitute WP:SYNTH. What is needed is a source that discusses the topic in a broad overview already. Otherwise it's a form of original research and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with you about the unnecessary inclusion of a list of incidents. The bit I added (an incident which has been covered by UK media nationally), provides what you are asking: It is a simple, factual statement written from a neutral point of view. It is added to a section that provides the context of a broad overview. Perhaps a compromise might be to include the incident I referenced on the relevant list article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom) and then link the reference back to this one about the Bully XL. What do you think? Chausettes (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a better place for it. oknazevad (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I have added a short sentence about the number of attacks involving american bullies in the UK this year, as there has been a very significant increase due to the breed becoming more popular. It is not an itemized list of attacks, just a short summary. I feel this is very relevant to the article, as the dog becomes more popular. Jjamieallen (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Oknazevad has made repeated attempts to remove vital & important information about bully XL attacks in the United Kingdom, posted by 4 separate users. Monitoring for ongoing vandalism. Jjamieallen (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m especially aware that once again this has become a popular page for those seeking information (due to UK news coverage, presumably). Just replying to let everyone know I’ll continue to monitor for any vandalism and/or signs of non-neutrality. Thanks all. Chausettes (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks my friend. I went ahead and did it anyways. Hopefully less contentious and I found a heap of other examples on there too. Chausettes (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2023

AKC does recognize American Bully. I have an AKC papered American Bully. Change the info, its old. 216.235.114.183 (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide a source. I checked the AKC website and they recognize American Bulldog which our article says is not the same as an American Bully. RudolfRed (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Age ?

Maybe under Health we could put life expectancy. 2A00:23C5:30A:9C01:E4EC:64AB:8E4E:82C7 (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2023

In January 2023, Natasha Johnston, 28, was killed by her own pet, an American Bully XL, as she walked eight dogs in Surrey, England, UK. The pet was humanely killed by order of the police. 2A00:23C7:F810:8201:88B3:4448:6009:12EA (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Callmemirela 🍁 19:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2023

Hello, I noticed that the temperament section on this page has been edited to talk about many attacks that have been committed by this dog breed in the UK. This is not representative of this breed overall, and seems to have been written with bias against the breed. I think it should be edited to include a general review of temperament described here with the statement regarding the potential to be dangerous remaining: https://www.dogbreedinfo.com/a/americanbully.htm#:~:text=The%20American%20Bully%20is%20a%20happy%2C%20outgoing%2C%20stable%20and%20confident,than%20to%20please%20its%20master. Thank you for your consideration. Unless you include attacks committed by every breed on their pages, it is not fair to include this. 2601:901:4300:B890:81F3:FB61:7A44:600D (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Xan747 (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

 Note: there has been previous discussion on this talk page about whether to include individual incidents of deaths due to attacks by this breed. Personally I think a single paragraph summarizing incidents representative of circumstances leading to attacks, and the effects of them, is warranted--not to smear the breed, but to inform potential owners of the risks of improper/inadequate training and supervision. A semi-protected edit request is not the mechanism for achieving this change: you should reach out to the editors who have made major and recent contributions to the article and attempt to reach a consensus for changes along the lines you suggest. Xan747 (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed much of the recent, obviously POV-pushing anecdotes and news stories that don't support the statements they're claimed to be referenced to. They're obviously an attempt to village NPOV in a biased manner. oknazevad (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism and edit-warring

The editing occurring on this article is bothering me. There appears to be a concerted effort by one editor to revert anything that might be construed as critical of the breed/subject. Is there a way to secure the article to ensure this apparent type of bias and lack of neutrality is avoided? Chausettes (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

List of deaths

There seems to be a deletion of sourced material on this article due to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The list of deaths caused by this breed are noteworthy and reported in reliable sources. They have been added by several users and consistently reverted by just one. From my assessment I feel there is a consensus for their inclusion in the edit summaries. I have restored the passages as I feel that the material's deletion has been the result of a single user feeling their personal preference should override the consensus.

It's my feeling that the lethality of this breed is probably the most notable thing about these dogs, if we take the balance of reliable sources. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Four random incidents in one country is not sufficient for inclusion. We have the actual statistics. All this does is serve to create a POV issue. oknazevad (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That is your opinion, the consensus on this comment page, and of users adding the information, is that this information is warranted, though perhaps as a single paragraph rather than a list of incidents. I will rewrite the paragraph tomorrow along the lines suggested above by User:Xan747. Given the concerns of other users about your reverts on this page, I would suggest you didn't revert it out of hand, as it would be a third revert against consensus. --Boynamedsue (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

A summary, not a laundry list, would be far more NPOV. oknazevad (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

With each attack/incident that occurs it is harder to argue against a list being included. The inclusion of a list will also help illustrate the trend - this is especially helpful in the case of the UK where there has been a growth in attacks that is proportionate to ownership of the breed, but disproportionate among all breeds. Not all breed articles on Wikipedia need a list of attacks included, but this article would benefit from it. I appreciate the need for neutrality but that cannot be at the expense of documented facts. Chausettes (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I think at this point we can more or less say there is consensus for the inclusion of the list? Boynamedsue (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Using eye-witness reports of people identifying breeds is the same problem. You're creating a bias against the breed yourself because you "just don't like it".

As posted in another comment:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9675396/

https://sheltermedicine.vetmed.ufl.edu/research/current-studies/dog-breed-identification/ 165.83.47.253 (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What is going on? Total contradiction!

This dog is now in the news in the UK, and there is a contradiction between UK experts describing these dogs as exceptionally lethal and the information presented in this article, according to which, they were bred to have a "lowered prey drive".

i suggest that the article seems to need a new section, 'XL Bully's in the UK'.

Overall, it appears that what's going on is, organisations in the USA do PR efforts to avoid mentioning the fact the XL Bully is at its core an animal bred for fighting which was then bred to be a companion dog.

Regarding the American Bully Kennel Club (ABKC), this article has no business including their quote which seems trying to imply that this immensely strong and muscular dog was not bred to BE immensely strong and muscular, but only "to look that way".

"...published breed standard describes the dog as giving the "impression of great strength for its size"."

This would make sense if the dog appeared strong but was no in fact powerful, which does not appear to be the case.

They bred a powerful, thick boned muscular dog. That's it. The article should not include the claim that they created a powerful dog "for aesthetic reasons", that no-one wanted a dog that was actually strong, they just wanted it to have thick bone and loads of muscle "to look strong". This doesn't seem very serious.

The article's contradiction with current expert opinion from them UK seems to be because, any taming effort in the foreign animals has recently been undone in the UK, where it is the dog of choice for criminals, who have increasingly entered the breeding scene, seeking to further bring out its natural fighting instincts.

With lethal results, as the article correctly points out.

Sources, and quotes or excerpts:

"I believe the American XL Bully is the most dangerous dog ever created — predatory, over-reactive, stimulated by movement, distrustful of strangers and incredibly strong. They were bred for dog-fighting and two of the main breeds used to create XL Bullys are the American bulldog and American pit bull terrier — both commonly used in the sport of schutzhund.

In America, where they became ­popular in the Eighties thanks to the hip-hop music scene, these dogs are described as gentle family animals that are good with children. Unfortunately the record of this dog’s behaviour in Britain matches none of those characteristics.

I imagine that the gene pool in the UK is far smaller than in America, and the dogs here have been bred and bred."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23910458/ban-xl-bullys-dangerous-dog-expert-advice/

"Anecdotal evidence meanwhile suggests that they are favoured by criminal gangs because of their strength and intimidating features.

A BBC Panorama undercover investigation explored the link between organised crime and their breeding earlier this year.

Ian Muttitt, a chief inspector with the RSPCA's Special Operations Unit, said at the time organised crime had become increasingly involved in extreme dog breeding trade over the past five years.

He told the BBC that sales in themselves were lucrative, and can also be used to launder money.

In written evidence to a Parliamentary inquiry, the National Police Chiefs' Council said oversized dogs continue to be used as "status symbols" among criminals. "

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66775985

Also, is it not likely that there is the "official" version of this dog in the US, and a far more dangerous underground breed? Something to look into, to prevent this article from being a whitewash, because these are serious issues.

BruckerState (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

All excellent observations @BruckerState - it seems sensible to create a subheading for ‘XL Bully in the UK’ (or similar). It might help address the continued problems with UK-relevant detail being removed under the auspices of it not being representative of the breed globally. Seems like you have a pragmatic solution. Chausettes (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I did a second post, I could have put it here, in that post I share my concern that this article reflects what lobbyists want the public to hear, not what seems to be the actual reality, namely that the bully IS a fighting dog; "non aggressive fighting dog" is a meaningful term, it refers to a fully functioning killing machine that's been switched off, if you add the aggression back in, you have a killing machine which is switched on. Reduced 'prey drive' (aka killer instinct) was par of the intention for the officially recognised US breed? This may be true, but I wouldn't necessarily trust a Kennel Club to tell the whole story.

So, I invite others to comment here or make edits mentioning that this is officially a "non aggressive fighting dog designed to be a companion animal", and in the UK its natural instincts capabilities as a fighting dog appear to have been enthusiastically embraced,

, with deadly consequences, and I will monitor the article, if someone else hasn't updated it I will trial some edits (or make an edit request if my account is too new to edit?)

BruckerState (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Considering people are absolutely awful at identifying breeds, this sensationalism is pure nonsense and fear-mongering with zero factual basis behind it and it's disheartening to see Wikipedia promote such a bias.

https://sheltermedicine.vetmed.ufl.edu/research/current-studies/dog-breed-identification/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9675396/ 165.83.47.253 (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I have created the proposed Bullies in the UK section.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking good - let’s see how things develop from here. Hopefully less contentious for all from here onwards. Thanks @Boynamedsue Chausettes (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@BoynamedsueI see the heading has been revised again by another editor. They have removed the ‘UK’ reference. I fear this may reopen an old wound. Chausettes (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Belbury you may want to reconsider the edit regards shortening the heading title. See above for the debate and the context. Thanks. Chausettes (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Chausettes, I was aiming to apply MOS:SECTIONSTYLE, in this edit. Section headings shouldn't repeat "American Bullies" (the reader already knows that the article is about this breed), and subsections of the United Kingdom section don't need to keep repeating "in the United Kingdom".

If you think I've removed some important nuance in removing "XL" from the headings, this was unintentional and you're welcome to correct that. But I don't think there's a case for repeating the breed and "in the United Kingdom" otherwise, when the sections are clearly nested within a higher "In the United Kingdom" section. Belbury (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Understood. That makes sense to me. Was just mindful that the UK specifics were originally included to appease another editor who felt the inclusion of any attack details were unnecessary. Thanks for contributing. Chausettes (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Warning: ignore Lobbyists! "Low Aggression", "Fighting Dog" explained.

The American Bully is a fighting dog. It is bred to have killer instinct. It is bred to enjoy fighting.

When an American Bully is bred to be not aggressive, you get big, strong, safe, non aggressive fighting dog. A fighting dog which won't attack adults, children, farm animals, or other dogs.

When the aggression is bred back in, you have a big, strong, aggressive fighting dog, which enjoys attacking adults, children, farm animals and other dogs.

Understand?

You can't take just any large dog and turn it into a lethal killer.

There are lobby groups actively trying to obscure this reality. The article should not be beholden to them!

BruckerState (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Wow.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-the-rspca-defending-the-american-bully-dog/

it cites the following: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1558787818302259

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233995885_Breed_differences_in_canine_aggression

Versus this study which suggests, "yes, bully dogs kill much more often, but maybe it's not because bully dogs have more killer instinct than other dogs, maybe it is because bully dog owners are not as knowledgeable as other dog owners. We can't be sure."

https://bvajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1136/vr.b4855

The RSPCA calls their view on dangerous dogs ‘anti BSL’, meaning anti-Breed Specific Legislation. As this suggests, the argument is that there are no differences in aggression between different dog breeds. In other words, whilst the RSPCA presumably agrees that Pointers point and Retrievers retrieve, they say ‘there’s no robust scientific evidence to suggest that prohibited types are more likely to be involved in dog bite incidents or fatalities than any other breed’, and ‘although it might seem that some dogs are born to be aggressive, it is more accurate to say that they are born with inherited tendencies that might, if not controlled, make aggressive behaviour more likely.’ That dog fighting rings created breeds specifically for the purpose of killing is seemingly irrelevant to the RSPCA’s belief that breed barely matters.

Their view is clearly false. To hold this position you have to ignore mounds of scientific data, publicly available figures on attacks and deaths, and cherry-pick research. Indeed, it seems even the RSPCA itself doesn’t really believe that all breeds are created equal. Their own dog insurance, for example, will not cover multiple fighting breeds, such as the American Pitbull Terrier, and even other fighting breeds that are not forbidden by the Dangerous Dogs Act. The American Bully is not even listed by the RSPCA’s insurance arm as a separate breed. Anyone wanting to insure their Bully has to register it as an Pitbull-cross, meaning it would be denied any cover. Such dogs, it seems, are too risky to insure.

"The RSPCA calls their view on dangerous dogs ‘anti BSL’, meaning anti-Breed Specific Legislation. As this suggests, the argument is that there are no differences in aggression between different dog breeds. In other words, whilst the RSPCA presumably agrees that Pointers point and Retrievers retrieve, they say ‘there’s no robust scientific evidence to suggest that prohibited types are more likely to be involved in dog bite incidents or fatalities than any other breed’, and ‘although it might seem that some dogs are born to be aggressive, it is more accurate to say that they are born with inherited tendencies that might, if not controlled, make aggressive behaviour more likely.’ That dog fighting rings created breeds specifically for the purpose of killing is seemingly irrelevant to the RSPCA’s belief that breed barely matters.

Their view is clearly false. To hold this position you have to ignore mounds of scientific data, publicly available figures on attacks and deaths, and cherry-pick research. Indeed, it seems even the RSPCA itself doesn’t really believe that all breeds are created equal. Their own dog insurance, for example, will not cover multiple fighting breeds, such as the American Pitbull Terrier, and even other fighting breeds that are not forbidden by the Dangerous Dogs Act. The American Bully is not even listed by the RSPCA’s insurance arm as a separate breed. Anyone wanting to insure their Bully has to register it as an Pitbull-cross, meaning it would be denied any cover. Such dogs, it seems, are too risky to insure." BruckerState (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Edits to legal sections

@Apache287 please consider reinstating the edit you made regarding UK regulation/law not (yet) being enacted. Perhaps better to move to another section rather than remove altogether. Thanks. Chausettes (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

No reinstation is necessary at this time due to the fact the "United Kingdom" section covers the general issue of the government seeking to bring in a ban. The actual legislative mechanism for enacting the ban is currently not known, which is why it's inappropriate to put it in the legislative section (which covers in effect legislative bans). Apache287 (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Apologies @Apache287 - I thought I had removed my comment. I re-read the section and it all made sense. Sorry to cause confusion. Chausettes (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It's fine. However I think it does raise the question though that at some point, probably when the legislation is in place, that the "United Kingdom" section needs to be concisely summaried and moved into that "legislation" section as pure background. It's getting to the point of afoul of Wikipedia:Recentism and Wikipedia:NOTNEWS as a list of "examples of new stories about XL attacks" rather than an encyclopaedia entry about XLs being banned in the UK. Apache287 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)