:The problem with this is it includes "pit-bull type dogs," nto just pit bulls. This is a very broad category which probably contains more non-pits than pits. You woudl have to knwo the proportion of pit-bull type dogs to give any sort of analysis and you would have to onyl compare to similar-sized dogs to be fair. Chihuahuas are often viscous little bastards, but aren't capable of killing a human under most circumstances, so it isn't to put them and other small breeds in the comparison. [[User:Ace of Sevens|Ace of Sevens]] ([[User talk:Ace of Sevens|talk]]) 21:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
:The problem with this is it includes "pit-bull type dogs," nto just pit bulls. This is a very broad category which probably contains more non-pits than pits. You woudl have to knwo the proportion of pit-bull type dogs to give any sort of analysis and you would have to onyl compare to similar-sized dogs to be fair. Chihuahuas are often viscous little bastards, but aren't capable of killing a human under most circumstances, so it isn't to put them and other small breeds in the comparison. [[User:Ace of Sevens|Ace of Sevens]] ([[User talk:Ace of Sevens|talk]]) 21:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
::The entire premise of the wiki article is that the term "pit bull" refers to a type of dog that is made up of several breeds. This is consistent with the general usage term "pit bull" and with various statutes in the United States and elsewhere, so I do not see how we can get around categorization. [[User:Astro$01|Astro$01]] ([[User talk:Astro$01|talk]]) 02:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
::The entire premise of the wiki article is that the term "pit bull" refers to a type of dog that is made up of several breeds. This is consistent with the general usage term "pit bull" and with various statutes in the United States and elsewhere, so I do not see how we can get around categorization. [[User:Astro$01|Astro$01]] ([[User talk:Astro$01|talk]]) 02:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
,:::The article says the bull terriers and Staffordshire terriers are both pit bulls. It does not say that Akitas and German shepherds, which are given as examples of pit-bull-type dogs. are pit bulls. What I'm saying is there seems to be little correlation between what's grouped under pit-bull-type dog for the purposes of the statistics and what is common considered a pit bull, so without more data, it's quite useless. [[User:Ace of Sevens|Ace of Sevens]] ([[User talk:Ace of Sevens|talk]]) 10:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
::The article does not identify "viciousness" as a trait of pit bull-type dogs, except to mention it in the context of describing some breed-specific legislation, so I do not see how it bears in this case. [[User:Astro$01|Astro$01]] ([[User talk:Astro$01|talk]]) 02:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
::The article does not identify "viciousness" as a trait of pit bull-type dogs, except to mention it in the context of describing some breed-specific legislation, so I do not see how it bears in this case. [[User:Astro$01|Astro$01]] ([[User talk:Astro$01|talk]]) 02:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
:::You seem to have missed my point. I was saying that in order to be fair when calculating what percentage of dog fatalities are caused by pitbulls, you have to only compare them to dogs large enough to be theoretically dangerouss. Comparing them to dogs in general would be like including start pistols in gun-crime statistics. [[User:Ace of Sevens|Ace of Sevens]] ([[User talk:Ace of Sevens|talk]]) 10:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs articles
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Obviously there's contention as to whether Pit Bulls are a more aggressive or violent dog. Nearly the entire article is spent on this. This means a summary of that argument needs to appear in the lead. I propose something along the lines of, "Though often depicted as a breed particularly aggressive and sometimes violent to humans, the truth of this characterization has been contested."--Loodog (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: "The temperament of pit-bull type dogs is disputed", followed by a summary of the positions with citations for each, similar to the way that "breed specific legislation" is summarized. This could lead to a fairly long discussion, but I would suggest limiting it to the breed conformation characteristics as identified by the United Kennel Club and the American Kennel Club, and findings from various court decisions.Astro$01 (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proportionality of pit bull-related deaths
The text under discussion is:
It is impossible to say with certainty if the number of pit bull-type dog attacks is out of proportion to the number of pit bull-type dogs in the population because the total number of pit bulls in any geographic area is unknown.
The question is whether a specific citation is needed to assert that "it is impossible to say with certainty...."
I think the answer is "no." My logic is as follows:
"Proportionality" refers to the question of whether the number of fatalities due to attacks by pit-bull-type dogs is out of proportion to the number of pit bull-type dogs in the population.
If the ratio of the number fatal attacks by pit bull-type dogs to the number of pit bull dogs in the population is significantly greater than the ratio of the number of fatal attacks by all other types of dogs to the number of all other types of dogs in the population, then one could say that pit bull-type dogs cause a disproportionately larger number of fatalities than other dogs.
If pit bulls kill a disproportionately larger number of people, then one could say that pit bull-type dogs are more likely to kill than other dogs.
The assertion under discussion follows from the following quote from the cited material:
There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.
If there is no way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, then it is impossible to draw the conclusion at (3) above because you cannot get past step (2), wherein you must know the number of a particular breed (or group of related breeds) to perform the calculations.
In light of the CDC position, the basis for an assertion by Temple Grandin "that the percentage of dog bites by pit bulls is much higher than their proportion in the general population of pet dogs" is unclear.
The CDC 2000 report specifically says (and is quoted in the wiki article):
It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities
The cited text gives the proportionality statement in terms of likelihood, rather than an absolute fact, so it seems more precisely stated than in the Grandin citation.
The problem with this is it includes "pit-bull type dogs," nto just pit bulls. This is a very broad category which probably contains more non-pits than pits. You woudl have to knwo the proportion of pit-bull type dogs to give any sort of analysis and you would have to onyl compare to similar-sized dogs to be fair. Chihuahuas are often viscous little bastards, but aren't capable of killing a human under most circumstances, so it isn't to put them and other small breeds in the comparison. Ace of Sevens (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entire premise of the wiki article is that the term "pit bull" refers to a type of dog that is made up of several breeds. This is consistent with the general usage term "pit bull" and with various statutes in the United States and elsewhere, so I do not see how we can get around categorization. Astro$01 (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
,:::The article says the bull terriers and Staffordshire terriers are both pit bulls. It does not say that Akitas and German shepherds, which are given as examples of pit-bull-type dogs. are pit bulls. What I'm saying is there seems to be little correlation between what's grouped under pit-bull-type dog for the purposes of the statistics and what is common considered a pit bull, so without more data, it's quite useless. Ace of Sevens (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not identify "viciousness" as a trait of pit bull-type dogs, except to mention it in the context of describing some breed-specific legislation, so I do not see how it bears in this case. Astro$01 (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed my point. I was saying that in order to be fair when calculating what percentage of dog fatalities are caused by pitbulls, you have to only compare them to dogs large enough to be theoretically dangerouss. Comparing them to dogs in general would be like including start pistols in gun-crime statistics. Ace of Sevens (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History - recommended for complete revision
The text in the history section has been entirely unsourced since January 2007; the exception is the number of times pit bull-type dogs appeared on the cover of Life magazine.
There are brief histories of the three breeds (American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier) that are grouped together as pit bull-type dogs on the websites of the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club. I propose substituting text from those sites (with attribution) for all the current "history" text.Astro$01 (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganize "Breed-Specific Language" and "Legal Challenges" sections
I propose to delete the overall category of "legal challenges" and shift the main subgroups (Canada, United States) to follow the tables within the country-specific portions of the BSL section, since these are the only countries found so far with legal challenges to BSL aimed at pit bull-type dogs. Astro$01 (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the media the term is vague and may include other breeds with similar physical characteristics, such as the Perro de Presa Canario, Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Alano Español, Japanese Tosa, Dogue de Bordeaux, Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, American Bulldog, Boxer, Valley Bulldog, Olde English Bulldogge, Renascence Bulldogge, and Banter Bulldogge. These breeds are rarely listed by name in breed-specific legislation, but they are sometimes included when the term is defined broadly and based on physical appearance.[citation needed]
This material has no citation - I recommend it for deletion if sourcing cannot be found. Several of the breeds mentioned (Perro de Presa Canario, Dogo Argentino, Japanese Tosa) are cited as breeds separate from the pit bull-type dog. From personal experience, few people will mistake a Dogue de Bordeaux (as seen in the movie, Turner and Hooch) for a pit bull-type dog.Astro$01 (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I propose deleting this section and instead adding a reference in the "Legislation specific to pit bull-type dogs" mentioning that pit bull-type dogs do not have "locking jaws" and providing an attributed citation. Astro$01 (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Famous Owners" section - recommended for deletion
I propose to delete the "famous owners" section since it is US-focused and no new information has come to light regarding "famous owners" outside the United States. Astro$01 (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm restoring the section. Lack of non-US owners is not a reason to delete this. Pit Bulls are much more popular in the US than in most other countries, so it's not surprising the list would be US-centric. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"External Links" section - recommended for deletion
I propose to delete the "External Links" section since the 1st link (on dog bite statistics) does not reference pit bull terriers; the second links to a 1991 movie (A Little Vicious) about a pit bull-type dog saved from court-ordered euthanasia by the intervention of a professional dog trainer; the trainer is able to modify the dog's behavior, so court takes the dog from its owner and gives it to the trainer. Seems more of a curiosity than an encyclopedia entry; possibly move reference to the "History" section. Astro$01 (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only information remaining in this section refers to a case in Alabama that did not address breed-specific legislation, but rather an administrative decision to euthanize pit bull puppies. Only indirect references to the original material appears to be available. If this material is ever found, it should be included as part of the challenges to breed-specific legislation under "Alabama" (this would be a new area in the relevant table). The "debate" is already encapsulated in the discussion of dog bite-related fatalities and breed-specific legislation Astro$01 (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Further Reading" section - recommended for deletion
This section contains a series of books with a very strong POV. If we are trying to get rid of the POV issues with this article then we would either need to find books with a strong POV the other way (and identify them as such) or just get rid of these articles. It seems to me the POV is identified in the earlier BSL section, so we do not need more of that here. Astro$01 (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This section contains some references to other wikipedia pages that are already referenced in the text. No need to list them twice. Astro$01 (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I propose adding a main section to organize discussion of commercial restrictions on pit bull ownership and activies, including restrictions on homeowners insurance, the ability to rent property as the owner of a pit bull-type dog, airline or other restrictions on travel, etc. to differentiate these restrictions from breed-specific legislation. Astro$01 (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This section comprised over 2/3 of the article (total size > 100 kB). Shifted to its own article, with reference pointers aiming at it. Astro$01 (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dog Bite-Related Fatalities
As the rebuilder of this page over the past couple of months, I think I should put down here more detail on the whys and wherefores of the dog bite-related fatality information I added. If you don't like it, please post here and discuss proposed changes (as called for at the top of the page) before wandering through and libeling people or deleting entire sections. I continually extended that courtesy as I rewrote the section; please continue that practice now.
I did not add information on the number of dog attacks because the number of "attacks" by dogs is extremely difficult to assess: there are no organizations that I'm aware of that collect this information other than local animal control organizations within their own jurisdictions. This means that collating this data on a state, regional, or national level would require contact with every city/town/county animal control organization in the area to gather their dog bite information; even then, not all dog bites are reported to the animal control organizations, so the estimate would still be imprecise, with no reliable way of knowing which breed or breed types were involved.
The number of "fatal attacks" by dogs (aka "canine homicides") is much easier to identify because the level of law enforcement scrutiny and public interest is much greater. "Dog bites man" is not news; "dog kills man" IS news, and these events are unusual enough to garner significant local and sometimes national attention. As with all dog bites, the federal and state governments do not collate fatal dog attack information, so the next-best generally available source of this information is press reportage. All three of the reports identified in the article, namely the CDC, Clifton Report, and Dogsbite.org) use the same general methodology of scanning press reports; the prevalence of internet news reportage, and the advent of Google(R) and other internet search engines has made finding these reports considerably easier than in the past.
With regard to dogsbite.org and reporting for the years 2006-2008, I understand Ms. Lynn has a point of view and that yours may differ; however, ad hominem rewrites are not appropriate here. I have reviewed her citations and references and believe she has been quite thorough in documenting all of the claimed dog bite attacks as well as their attribution in the press to various dog breeds. If you have other information that contradicts her sources on specific canine homicides in the 2006-2008 time period, e.g., some incidents were missed or incorrectly reported as canine homicides, or where the press misreported animal control or law enforcement personnel in identifying the type of dog involved, or where these personnel made a clear error in identifying the breed of the dog(s) in question, bring them forward and we can talk about them; I'm sorry, but I think that making generalizations about how the press always gets it wrong, or how animal control professionals or veterinarians cannot identify pit bull-type dogs based on established criteria are insufficient in light of the supporting data as well as numerous U.S. court decisions in this regard(see the breed-specific legislation page for more details). You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. If you have them, bring them.
It don't see how dogsbite.org would meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines. Statistics should come directly from original sources, not from a aggregation site. If dogsbite.org is mentioned, it should be in a new section describing groups with opposing viewpoints (advocacy groups versus opposition groups, or position statements from notable groups). OhNoitsJamieTalk14:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree caution is warranted. I checked the Wikipedia guidelines dealing with items about the deceased before I posted the names, and it seems to me that the item as written is consistent with that guidance whereas using the names of the decedents' relatives or of living pit bull attack victims would not be within the guidance. Astro$01 (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New section proposed
Not sure what the section should be called, but how about a section where we discuss notable pro/anti groups (i.e., badrap.org, dogsbite.org), as well advocates and opponents (i.e., Cesar Milan), or positions from notable groups. Given the controversial nature of the topic, I think both sides deserve some coverage. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are playing with fire to start inserting sources/references/opinions from organizations that are arguably notWP:Reliable sources and which emphasize a very strong POV - thanks, BTW, for pointing out that guidance! Your point is very well taken, so I'm going to try to present the same information using direct references, rather than through an aggregation site, as soon as I can.
I think the likely result of the new section will be one heck of an edit war, not to mention a lot of vandalism. We've already seen a precursor with the reaction of people who like pit bulls when they saw reporting of data collected (with solid attribution) by folks who do not like pit bulls. I think this article will be much better off if it keeps to "facts about pit bulls" rather than presenting an open invitation to "facts, observations, irrelevancies, opinions, vitriol, falsehoods, libels, personal insults, and smears aimed between people who like/do not like pit bulls." The breed-specific legislation page had a lot of the same problems, for a lot of the same reasons: "argument" was routinely presented as "fact." If you want a preview, just do a "Google" search for news stories keyed on "pit bull attack" and peruse the reader comments section that follows the reportage.
Hmm...you do raise a valid point. I appreciate your hard work on the article, and that you're trying to keep the it as factual as possible and make sure that it adhere to our guidelines. It's tricky though, because there is a cultural/media phenomenon/controversy currently with pit bulls more so than most other breeds right now. For instance, when I was growing up, Dobermans and German Shepherds were the stereotypical scary/evil/dangerous dogs; now they've been replaced by pit bulls for that role. At the same time, there is a significant (and notable, i.e. Cesar Milan) group of proponents. In any case, it's worth thinking about, though it would be prudent to discuss it further here before trying to add it to the article. OhNoitsJamieTalk04:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clifton report methodology
I'm not familiar with exactly how closely Wikipedia would like to approximate what passes for "objective" among the scientific communities. The methodology used to attain the data in the Clifton Report would not be considered rigorous or be considered by a peer reviewed journal. Threats to the validity of the conclusions drawn from the data include, for starters, that none of the possible confounds to statistical conclusion validity have been addressed. For example, possibilities could include that pitbull attacks are more often published, that unsupervised children cause a statistically significant number of dog attacks in general, etc., etc., etc. There exists no reasonable causal inference where no confounds have been controlled for.
Appropriate methodology could include multiple regression, where different predictor variables such as unsupervised child, socioeconomic status, etc., are regressed onto the variable, fatal dog attack. Using this sort of method can allow for comparison of different contributors to dog fatalities, and can also lend to causal inference.
Causal inferences are RARELY considered reasonable by scientists when they are made basis of correlational data such as that presented in the Clifton Report. Multiple regression, which I all too briefly explained would be one exception.
I don't see a need to ask the professors, as Clifton report does not claim the reported percentages are statistically significant or that they prove that the number of people killed by pit bull-type dogs is out of proportion to the number of pit bull-type dogs in the dog population; rather, the percentages are significant in an actuarial sense because the calculation of perceived risk, or probability of being bitten times the damage inflicted by a bite as measured by many politicians and insurance actuaries, is unacceptably high for pit bull-type dogs. As they say, when the lawn is mowed it is the tall grass that gets shortened. Astro$01 (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are still making a causal inference, that when pitbull-type dogs attack, they inflict more damage than other breeds. You are suggesting that pitbulls themselves CAUSE more damage than other breeds when they attack humans, rather than that humans are more vulnerable to damage in situations of pitbull-type dog attacks, for example. However unlikely my example is, no confounds have been controlled for in this "study", so you cannot responsibly judge how unreasonable my example is based on these data. A more likely confound would be that pitbull-type dog attacks on people, which are arguably sensationalized by the media, get more "press". Further, more attacks rendering the greatest damage probably find "press-time", or likewise, the most severe attacks are probably reported to insurance. This is called sampling bias, where the authors did not acquire a representative sample of pitbull-type dog attacks on people. This confounds the calculation of a probability of being bitten, and likewise a calculation of probable damage inflicted. You must have a representative sample of dog bite cases, such as a random sample, and know very near the total number of pitbull-type dogs to calculate the probability of being attacked or the probable damage.
I agree that there is greater risk of incomplete reporting for non-fatal dog attacks; however, the Clifton Study and the article address fatal attacks only. The article already carries Mr. Clifton's disclaimer the list does not include all fatal attacks, so if you know about cases where Mr. Clifton missed fatal attacks, or where medical examiners incorrectly attributed fatal attacks to dogs, then bring them forward. Astro$01 (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the articles? The reports address attacks doing bodily harm, maimings, and deaths. And my broad and sweeping point has been missed. To make the inference that either a breed is more likely to attack, or that a breed is more deadly when attacking, you need the total number of animals of the breed in the population. Since Mr. Clifton does not report this in his disclaimer, the statement of the study's limitations is inadequate.
Naturally. By "article" I was refering to the information in the pit bull wiki article, not to other passages in the Clifton Report that were not included in the wiki Pit Bull article. Sorry for any confusion on that point. Astro$01 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue here is that you believe you can calculate a probability based on what you think is a representative sample of the most severe attacks. You cannot, as you need the total number of dogs of the breed or type to do so. If there are one hundred attacks on people by Golden Retrievers, and two hundred attacks by pitbull-type dogs, with the latter attacks doing twice the damage on average, this tells me nothing about how likely I am to be severely damaged by a pitbull-type dog. I would need a representative sample of attacks by both breeds, and the total number of the dogs of both breeds to calculate this.
Your assumption of what I believe is mistaken. Please re-read the portions of the wiki article that address potential sources of error in the "[[Pit Bull#Pit bull-related fatalities|pit bull-related fatalities" section and in the Clifton Report section, including the point made here. Astro$01 (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make an assumption. You stated that "percentages are significant in an actuarial sense because the calculation of perceived risk". This reveals that you in fact had believed, or do believe that such a calculation, as I mentioned above, could be carried out (to quantify risk).
The significance of the percentages in an actuarial sense does not stem from belief but from an examination of insurance industry practices on liability insurance related to pit bull-type dogs. Whether I believe their practices are right, fair, or rigorous is irrelevant; I therefore continue to maintain that your assumption about my beliefs is mistaken. Astro$01 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, your metaphor is quite inadequate. Here we would be deciding which type of grass to stop planting, where we want lawn that doesn't grow too long, too often. Complicates things a bit.. While one type of grass may grow longer, what matters IS statistical significance. If only one blade grows longer than other types of grasses, would we stop growing this type? We need solid stats to make a decision like this.
The metaphor of the tallest blade of grass refers to the breed or type of breeds that have the greatest prominence, whether for good reason or not. If the one blade grows longer, it is cut off. With regard to the need for "solid stats", it has been legally settled that legislative bodies in the United States do not need "solid statistics" to make legislative decision, however much we might wish that to be so, nor will the courts overturn laws without solid statistical foundations. Astro$01 (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My question would be if the above is correct: Is pseudo science also good enough for Wikipedia? And if so, I believe it doesn't rise above "editorial" in rigor. It is then just a bunch of opinions. But maybe I have simply misunderstood and it aspires to be nothing more..
I was not engaging in name calling. The Clifton Reports utilize pseudo scientific methods and draw quite broad conclusions from their results. Without rigorous data collection, and the appropriate statistical analysis and interpretation, what we have in these reports is opinion. Don't take my word for it, but rather read Cook & Campbell (2001). Their book is called Experimental and Quasi Experimental Designs. I have seriously wondered how closely Wikipedia can approximate actual journals or texts in the fields that study particular subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.45.165 (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "study" under discussion represents poor methodology. Any generalization made from data should take into consideration its limitations.
Below I have made a list of specific unwarranted generalizations, that is, those inferences not supported by the data.
By "article" I was refering to the information in the pit bull wiki article, not to other passages in the Clifton Report that were not included in the wiki Pit Bull article. Sorry for any confusion on that point. Astro$01 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia hopes to responsibly share information with the general public, it should either remove this article or acknowledge that the sample is not representative, and that it CANNOT be inferred that pitbulls cause more damage based on this data set. I'm not saying the article is worthless, if anything, it suggests it would be worth doing a better study on the variables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.112.214 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One final note! The above alludes to the issue with BSL and apparently with the way insurance companies are doing business. In any sample there will be outliers, or extreme cases. The bigger the sample, the more extreme cases. It is a BSL supporters task to demonstrate that we are not talking only about outliers with pitbull-type dog attacks. This is because any popular breed of significant size will be associated with extreme cases where great damage is done to humans. Solid stats are needed to demonstrate this, and representative samples are needed for the stats. This is because a normal distribution is needed to carry out many statistical techniques. The distribution in the case of the Clifton Reports would be severely negatively skewed.
If we are only talking about outliers in pitbull-type dog attacks, than BSL does NO good. An illustration follows: Suppose ten thousand horses are owned, and ten people are killed. As horses gain popularity, two hundred people are killed. Do we get rid of horses? Are horses any more dangerous than they were before they were popular?
These are interesting issues for researchers and the public to sort out. Since Wikipedia has a broad audience, I think it this page on pitbull-type dogs serves to inform people's opinions related to BSL and other issues. I would appreciate it greatly if they don't get the perception that we know more than we do at this time, whether or not pitbull-type dogs turn out to be more dangerous than other dogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.112.214 (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specific generalizations in the article that are not supported by the data
1. "Pit bulls seem to differ behaviorally from other dogs in having far less inhibition about attacking people who are larger than they are." (pg. 4)
Here no confounds have been controlled for, such as that pitbull-type dogs may be in situations where attack is more often provoked by adults. Second, there is no representative sample of pitbull-type dogs, or attacks by such dogs. These data do not support the claim that pitbull-type dogs attack people who are larger than they are more often than other breeds.
2. "They are also notorious for attacking seemingly without warning, a tendency exacerbated by the custom of docking pit bulls' tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized." (pg. 4)
These data do not support the claim that pitbull-type dogs attack without warning. This statement is based on the depiction of the dogs in the popular media. In addition, pitbull-type dogs' tails are rarely docked, and tail wagging or stillness is not a salient warning sign.
3. "In more than two-thirds of the cases I have logged, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question." (pg. 4)
These data are self-report, and in the case that one's dog fatally attacks someone, one would not wish to report prior instances of aggression toward people. In a rigorous study, this confound would be controlled for, and we could judge its effect. Not the case here.
"4. Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable." (pg. 7)
The data do not support these inferences. Once again, there is no measurement of variables related to the dog attacks that may confound the validity of a conclusion that particular breeds are more dangerous than others. Once again, there is no representative sample. Not even going there related to the temperament comment..
The quote refers to other information known at the time the report was written on insurance industry practices regarding pit bull-type dogs (see the wiki section on liability insurance). The quote is included to provide context for why those practices have been implemented, though not everyone may believe those practices to be justified. Astro$01 (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. "If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed" (pg. 7)
Same as above. To conclude that "often" people are killed when pitbull-type dogs attack is a gross over-generalization. These data do not support the calculation of any statistic that would lend to such a conclusion.
I supppose whether you believe the data supports a statement that "often someone is maimed or killed" depends on how you define "often." The fact that pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were reported to have been involved in more canine homicides (about 64% of the total identifed in the report) than any other type or breed of dog seems to have convinced the insurance industry and others identified in the breed-specific legislation page that the killings happen "often" when compared to canine homicides committed by other breeds or breed-types, and that they happen "often enough" that action is required. Astro$01 (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not depend on my opinion of what often is. "Often" cannot be quantified based on these data. No meaningful comparison between breeds can be made based on these data. That was my entire point. That is also why asking one's local university professor would be a good exercise. I just can't really provide an understanding of how science should work in one discussion such as this. "Often enough" cannot be judged either. These judgments are really being made according to "hype" and intuition. Or to use a better word, "bias". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.45.165 (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To conclude, this article is basically an editorial. The limitations of these data render invalid any general conclusion derived from them. Why include a "study" if disclaimers reduce it to an editorial. Shall we include my opinion on Wikipedia as well?!? And I think the issue of BSL is certainly relevant to this discussion, since the Clifton reports include two pages addressing BSL. If BSL isn't relevant to this article, then the Clifton reports certainly aren't either!
The study is included because it reports research by a third-party source on information that bears directly other information discussed elsewhere in the wiki, namely the known and verified insurance industry restrictions on pit bull-type dogs. The wiki page includes the original disclaimers to ensure people reading the article are aware of the methodology and links back to the original papers so that wiki readers can judge any shortcomings for themselves; the wiki page also has a general discussion on the issues with surveying press reportage to determine the number of canine homicides in the United States or other jurisdictions when the government does not collect or provide that information. Astro$01 (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think these lists are a bit excessive per WP:UNDUE. Maybe in an article about dog attacks in general (because not all of the dogs are reported as pit bull type dogs). We don't list specific fatalities in pages for Rottweilers or German Shepherds, and we certainly don't list auto fatalities for certain breeds. If we're going to cover fatalities reported to be attributed to pit bull type dogs, a general summary should suffice. I feel bad deleting these sections because you obviously put a lot of work into putting them together; I just think they are out-of-place in this article. What do you think about creating a separate article about dog-related fatalities/attacks? OhNoitsJamieTalk04:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about discussing your proposed changes before you make wholesale deletions when you think something is "a bit excessive"?
The general summary is much better for this article. As I said, the detailed summary would make sense for a more general article on dog attacks in the United States, as it is a leading cause of injury in some age groups [1]. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A general note on this; unfortunately, it appears that many of the "lists of famous owners" on the web are simply copies of other lists, and it's hard to judge if the original list they were copied from was authoritative. Most sources agree that Bogart and Bacall had a dog Harvey; some identify it as a boxer, others as a "pit bull type" (and I suppose some very loose definitions of a pit would include boxers, though I personally wouldn't). Trying to track down more info on W Wilson supposedly using a pit-type dog to hunt rats in the White House basement. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Bogart discussion includes a link to the photo of Mr. Bogart, Ms. Bacall, and their son with Harvey - the photographer identified it as a boxer.
I agree that the "lists" are really copies of information from someone else, unless they have provided a source citation. That is why I'm trying to clean up the section by finding good original source or other research material, rather than relying on a list that someone compiled on their website. Astro$01 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki article is about pit bulls, or dogs with a significant mix of American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, or Staffordshire Terrier breeds. The picture of Ms. Silverstone's dog (see external reference above) clearly shows that it does not even remotely resemble any of the pit bull-type breeds shown in the article. If there is a "pit bull" somewhere in its family tree then the component is not significant, and therefore the dog is not a "pit bull" under the definitions used in the wiki article. Astro$01 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've met two two siblings that were the product of a pit bull and a chihuahua. One looked like a small pit bull, the other looked like a large chihuahua. On the other hand, the fact that it's at least a 3-way mix, the dog may not be an appropriate representation of any particular breed, and it probably better classified as a "mutt." Given your interpretation above of what constitutes a pit bull, Teddy's Roosevelt's Bull Terrier should probably be excluded as well, correct? OhNoitsJamieTalk17:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Ms. Silverstone's dog should be considered a "mutt" (or "mixed breed") based on the photographic evidence and that it should not justify including Ms. Silverstone on the list of "famous pit bull owners." Astro$01 (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a photograph of Teddy Roosevelt's dog, I'll take a look at it and be willing to reconsider whether his dog should be considered a pit bull-type dog; until then, it seems reasonable to go with the description of his dog as a "bull terrier" in contemporary news accounts and therefore as a pit bull-type dog given the breed history outlined in the wiki article. Astro$01 (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article suggests that while Staffordshire Bull Terriers are PBs, American Bulldogs and Bull terriers are not. Most sources I've seen simply describe Roosevelts dogs as a Bull Terrier. However, from the few photos I've found [7][8], it's hard to say....head is not domed like contemporary Bull Terriers, and head is not shaped the same as Staffordshire either. May be a result of evolving breeding standards or naming conventions, hard to say. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bull Terrier circa 1915. The photograph of the "Bull Terrier circa 1915" from the bull terrier page does not have the "egg face" of the modern bull terrier, so I would not expect to see the egg-face feature on President Roosevelt's "bull terrier." I think it is important, when reading contemporary accounts, to keep in mind that the name "bull terrier" and its various cognates referred to the predecessors of the modern pit bull-type dogs in the late 19th and early 20th centuries: at least, that is what the wiki article currently states based on the AKC and UKC sources. Astro$01 (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. President T. Roosevelt's dog was not a Bull Terrier, or "English Bull Terrier" as the breed is now known, but a bulldog-terrier hybrid "bull terrier" as they were contemporaneously known in the early 20th century, or what is now known as a pit bull-type dog. The American Bulldog is a mid-20th century recreation/restoration of the closest surviving relative of the Old English Bulldog, and therefore most closely approximates half of the "bull-terrier" hybrid from which pit bull-type dogs were derived. It is not a pit bull-type dog since the pit bull-type dog is at its core a bulldog/terrier hybrid, not a bulldog. Astro$01 (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. "Sgt. Stubby" was also called a "bull terrier" and is classified in the article as a pit-bull type dog: he looked nothing like the modern Bull Terrier. I will add some text in the front to make that clearer. Do you think the "history" text for the constituent breeds needs clarification in this regard? Astro$01 (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, the history sections are pretty well-written and organized. I guess if anything, it could be a bit more explicit about how terms describing dogs have evolved. I think in rereading the history section (especially the section on Staffies) it's definitely implied that the terminology and breeding has evolved, but it wouldn't hurt to be a tad more explicit, particularly what "bull terrier" used to refer to as opposed to what it refers to now. ("The dog formerly known as a bull terrier"? Kidding!). The history, as muddled as it is, is not easy to write about in simple terms I suppose. OhNoitsJamieTalk01:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
_part_2.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
![[5]](http://rulingcatsanddogs.com/contents/canine/celebrities/large/Alicia-Silverstone-with-her-dog-Samson.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NLhEIHPA4D0/RkLsVIg6zrI/AAAAAAAAAvA/iEmZ3k-X7_M/s1600-h/051007pete1.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](http://media-files.gather.com/images/d306/d453/d745/d224/d96/f3/full.jpg){kind=link}