Talk:American Pit Bull Terrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dogs / Breeds  (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and Dogs 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Dog breeds and species task force.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

"Dubious" tags on UKC's claims of pitbull "friendliness to strangers" and "unwillingness to attack humans"[edit]

Given the huge number of pitbull attacks on humans, the UKC can be easily said to be "full of s**t" on these breed standards, since those attacks are so common in the breed, absent extreme training. Pitbulls are very, VERY assertive dogs, in a physical sense, for better or worse, unless they have an uncommonly good upbringing which works against their natural grain. I have read too much on pitbulls and known too many real-life pitbulls to be fooled otherwise. 98.242.135.224 (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Demodex Mange to Health[edit]

I added a Demodex Mange section into the Health section because it is one of the main health issues in American Pitbull Terrier. Legendarygottyline (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Super heavy rewrite[edit]

After watching this page descend into chaos time and again, I took a swing at rewriting the page. I remove all the info from dubious, non-reliable sources, and I think I addressed the issue of tone as well. Let me know what you think. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it done? This page still lacks the correct information necessary for a wikipedia article. For example:

-The information on the breed's origin is incorrect

-The photo is lacking

-The dog itself is NOT a Terrier, NonconformistScumbag (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)NonconformistScumbag


I think you cant add anything about Gotti Line because that is am American Bully bloodline NOT and APBT anymore... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.66.67 (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Photo is not representational of the breed[edit]

I don't think the photo on there is a good representation of a American Pitbull Terrier, and i would like to have it removed.

199.43.48.131 (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)CHARLES 12/29/08

No, it's a fine picture. It's up on Wiki commons is acceptable to use here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

APBT come in many colors and sizes and I would like to have more pictures of this breed to show the wide varities there are.--Numberonekim (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ya a better photo to represent the breed should be used--201.230.55.7 (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the photo IS representational of the breed. I also believe that pictures of Nipper (the RCA Victor dog - bizarrely said to be a Jack Russell by the BBC!), Petey (the Our Gang dog), and Tige (Buster Brown's dog) should be included.

I've seen this white pit portrayed as a lab mix on other sites and have to admit that it looks like one from that angle and position. I believe most people wouldn't recognize this dog as an American Pit Bull Terrier when compared to the dogs the breed's standard was set on, perhaps that's ignorance on society's side. In all I like the image since it's a beautiful pit that's in a neutral posture and not overly built, but would like a picture that more clearly represents the APBT standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.148.64 (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

history[edit]

Pit Bulls are an ancient breed, they are not a bulldog/terrier mix, as claimed in the opening of this article. They are the one and only ancient fighting breed. They certainly date to Roman times. Richard F. Stratton's books are a good place to start for authentic info on the breed.

BRUTAL ENIGMA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.8.70 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely incorrect. Any breed can be considered ancient if you trace back far enough, obviously. Like when building phylogenetic trees in evolutionary biology, it is best to look for branch points and even within a continuous "limb" to notice important artificial selection pressures and forces that caused changes in genetic material. The APBT did indeed originate from the bull and terrier which was a cross between the old english bulldog and a terrier that occurred less than 200 years ago. This cross was then honed via selection to create various members of the pit bull breed group. To suggest otherwise is actually perverse.

I agree the history is too borad. APBT have a long history, I have some books and magazines that I would like contribute to the topic, if that's ok?--Numberonekim (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


"Molosser" - the APBT isn´t a molosser, it´s a TERRIER!!! Markus Pollak (VAK) (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I heard a rumor that the APBT was traced back to early Greek mastiff-like fighting dogs called Mollossians. Is that a true fact or is that a myth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.93.151 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking about adding to this page[edit]

I have a great book called The American Pit Bull Terrier Handbook by Joe Stahlkuppe and would like to add some of its information to this page. I mainly want to put a little bit of everything about pit bulls such as history, health care, feeding and actives for a pit bull, as well as maybe uploading some more pictures. If any one can give me some feed back on what they would like to see and/or what they don't want to see on this page that would be greatly appreciated, for I am new to this whole thing.--kimi-girl 22:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numberonekim (talkcontribs) 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I posted a welcome template on your talk page with a whole bunch of links. If you are new to the project you should make sure you familiarize yourself with some of our key policies before you attempt to contribute to save yourself extra frustration and stuff getting reverted. Key here are notability, verifiability, citing sources, reliable sources, original research, NPOV, What Wikipedia is not and probably a few more I have forgotten. Basically make sure any facts you add are noteworthy enough for inclusion, encyclopedic, properly sourced and neutral. Make sure that the book and author are well regarded as a source. Make sure that you are not including advice. Do not include opinion that is not attributable to someone highly regarded in the field. You can always propose your additions here first to get consensus and help first. Any questions please ask. Mfield (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
As far as pictures go, you cannot copy images out of books, the only images you will be able to upload are images you have taken yourself, or those that are licensed under a compatible license like CC or GFDL. Best place to ask about copyright issues is Media copyright questions. With images, if in doubt always ask first, copyright violations are taken seriously. Mfield (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

More pictures![edit]

Why is there only one picture of the apbt on this article? There should be more pics, maybe some pictures from apbt's way back in the day. Also some pics of modern apbt's, and no I don't mean those inbred, worthless so called "american bullys". Why doens't this article also mention anything about old family red nose pitbulls? And blue nose pits, and the many other beautiful colors the American Pit Bull Terrier. 69.66.27.162 (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing picture[edit]

Could someone tell me where this picture of the pit bull resting in the sun went? That was a picture of an actual pure bred and I would like to know where it went as it made an excellent representation of what an authentic pit bull looks like — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.22.81 (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Gameness?[edit]

How come this article doesn't mention anything on the pitbulls gameness? Pitbulls are the only dogs that truely have this trait and is a VERY important characteristic of the American Pit Bull Terrier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.27.162 (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


APBTs are NOT the only breed bred to be game. Plenty of terriers have been bred as game dogs over the years, including Patterdales. And it's far too touchy a subject for a wikipedia article. People who want to truly learn about the APBT in an in-depth manner will have to go elsewhere. 71.31.30.126 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Game as in dead game, game in the ring....you know what I'm talking about and I know what your game here is. You are as easy to see through as water in a sink. Yes, people should go elsewhere to learn the FIRST THING THEY SHOULD KNOW BEFORE CONSIDERING ADOPTING OR EVEN BEING AROUND THIS BREED. You have no business on this article. How many pit bulls do you own? Do you lie about your car too? Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't need it on this page. There is a reference to their gameness linked to an article on gameness, for those interested in that aspect of dogs. Dwightlathan77 (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Says Dwight without any reasoning. Oh, but there is something in the links....oh that sounds awesome.

Gameness is such a touchy issue because it is very important, like religion being a "touchy" subject in human history. Should it therefore be left out of history books? This page is overrun with people who can't think objectively about this breed and it shows. Any decent breed description (AKC, etc) mentions gameness and dog-directed aggression. It is just the truth.

The people who control this page are liars and endangering people. They scrub DEFINING BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS from this breed like gameness and dog-directed aggression (recognized of the the APBT by the UKC and of the AmStaff by the AKC (which are the same breed folks)). They say it is too controversial or touchy. It may be among total fools but since when do encyclopedias tailor themselves to the feelings of such people? If I could, I would totally erase this page. You people should not be involved in this page or a wiki at all. I have nothing but contempt for you and cannot assume good faith on your part. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Numeric poster, you are liar, based upon MILLIONS of REALITY experienced AND documented observations. MY pit bull NURSED a kitten, then LOVED said kitten as a "beard" as she tore through the house. She happily plays with other dogs. But then, *I* ENFORCED socialization and TRAINED her, as dumb as a bag of rocks that she is. Our OTHER dogs were different, in their own ways. They ALL managed to find a middle ground to meet and be dogs. NONE have EVER been human aggressive, save for one, who protected my wife against a mugger, whose weapon was given to the police in a bag. I guess I should have killed that dog, in YOUR world or something! There ARE no defining BEHAVIORAL characteristics. Period, other than media driven drivel. If *ANYONE* wanted to go upon THAT, *HUMANITY* should be eliminated, as humanity is levels ABOVE aggressive and destructive above any species on the planet. So, mass extinction expert species, should we delete BOTH species?Wzrd1 (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Law[edit]

The current section on "Law" appears to be a random assortment of unassociated paragraphs. How about replacing it with the following footnoted and sourced text copied from the referenced Pit Bull and Breed-specific legislation pages; the following text was adapted from the Pit Bull article:

A large number of jurisdictions have enacted breed-specific legislation (BSL) in response to a number of well-publicized incidents involving APBTs; some government organizations such as the United States Army[28] and Marine Corps[29] have taken administrative action as well. These actions range from outright bans on the possession of APBTs to restrictions and conditions on ownership, and often establish a legal presumption that an APBT is prima facie a legally "dangerous" or "vicious" dog. In response, some state-level governments in the United States have prohibited or restricted the ability of municipal governments within those states to enact breed-specific legislation, though these prohibitions on breed-specific legislation do not affect military installations located within these states.[31] It is now generally settled in case law that jurisdictions in the United States and Canada have the right to enact breed-specific legislation; however, the appropriateness and effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing dog bite fatalities is disputed.[31] One point of view is that APBTs are a public safety issue that merits actions such as banning ownership, mandatory spay/neuter for all pit bulls, mandatory microchip implants and liability insurance, or prohibiting people convicted of a felony from owning pit bulls.[32][33] Another point of view is that comprehensive "dog bite" legislation, coupled with better consumer education and legally mandating responsible pet keeping practices, is a better solution to the problem of dangerous dogs that breed-specific legislation.[34][35] A third point of view is that breed-specific legislation should not ban breeds entirely but should strictly regulate the conditions under which specific breeds could be owned, e.g., forbidding certain classes of individuals from owning them, specifying public areas from which they would be prohibited, and establishing conditions, such as requiring a dog to wear a muzzle, for taking dogs from specific breeds into public places.[36] Finally, some governments, such as in Australia, have forbidden the import of specific breeds and are requiring the spay/neuter of all existing dogs of these breeds in an attempt to slowly eliminate the population through natural attrition.

I should point out that the injunction cited in the current text of the APBT article, where a judge ordered a local jurisdiction in Virginia, USA not to euthanize dogs based on breed, was lifted after the trial: the local jurisdiction was judged to be the owner of the dogs and is allowed to dispose of them in any manner prescribed by law, for any reason including their breed. Astro$01 (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no further interest or discussion, a change based on and closely following the proposed change has been implemented. Astro$01 (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been busy with other stuff. We don't just jack text from other articles. The law section on here is well sourced with text from multiple secondary sources. There's no reason to remove it. Whether or not it is cohesive is another story, but there's no real reason to throw it out and take text from another article. That's most certainly not done around here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
If I assume that "jack" is some kind of slang for "hijack", then with regard to your "we don't just jack" comment I am wondering if it would make any difference if I was the original and sole author of the text I took from the Pit bull article, since that happens to be the case. From my perspective I am merely applying my own work and altering the wording slightly from a "pit bull" context to adapt it to the context of one of its components (American Pit Bull Terriers, which are one of several "pit bull"-type dog breeds). Astro$01 (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
In this case, the current text appears to present a list of sentences with no clear train of thought from one to the next, but where each of their points is covered in much greater detail and thoroughness in the related articles. It therefore seemed to me that a concise summary of the laws related to APBTs would be more helpful (encylopedic?) here, rather than what you have now reverted, since continuing along the path the article is currently on would merely duplicate much of the current breed-specific legislation article. Astro$01 (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I meant hijack. Even if you wrote text on the pit bull article, that still doesn't mean that we duplicate text here. It's just something that isn't done for a number of reasons, including the fact that it's redundant. And this article links to the pit bull one anyway, so if people want they can just click on the link. The pit bull and APBT are not the same breed of dog, so APBT-specific text should go here.
Now, onto the current text. I don't really see how there's "no clear train of thought." All Wikipedia articles are expected to comply with WP:WORLDVIEW - that is, that we don't just talk about the United States, but about other countries too. (Side note: your text on the pit bull article is almost entirely US-centric.) But look at the article now: it opens with a paragraph about animal control, and then goes into dogfighting and the United States, and then talks about laws in other countries. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it at least attempts to talk about other countries. And of course I would entertain the idea of expanding and modifying the current text, as long as we do so with APBT-specific info and not just your pit bull text.
If you're not satisfied with this, we can always seek a third opinion. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll address your points in a series of paragraphs here.
  1. "The pit bull and APBT are the not the same breed of dog, so APBT-specific text should go here."
Actually, the "pit bull" is not a single breed but defined in multiple pieces of breed-specific legislation as a type of dog that includes the APBT, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier breeds; some also include the American Bulldog and the Bull Terrier breeds. The BSL page has numerous examples of legislation from around the world with these definitions, including Winnipeg, Canada: [1][2], Singapore[3], and Aurora, Colorado, USA [4]. As it is, the current source citations for the "Law" section refer to the generic "pit bull" and not the APBT:
  1. The source citation for the Animal Control discussion refers to generic the "pit bull" and not to the APBT.[5] Incidentally, the injunction mentioned in the source citation was dissolved when a trial judge ruled that the county could euthanize pit bull-type dogs for any reason, including their breed.[6][7], so you may want to put a [citation needed] flag there unless you are willing to discuss pit bulls in general rather than the APBT in particular.
  2. The second paragraph does not have any source citations; however, Australia bans the import of "the American pit bull terrier or pit bull terrier", with the "pit bull terrier" identified as being distinct from the "American pit bull terrier."
  3. The citation given for the paragraph on dog fighting says, "In the United States, there are several fighting breeds that are generically referred to as 'pit bulls.'" The citation then goes on about which kennel clubs recognize which breeds, etc. and discusses the APBT only in the context of the other "pit bull" breeds.[8]
  4. The Ontario Dog Owner's Liability Act (2005) specifically bans "pit bulls" and defines a "pit bull" as "(a) a pit bull terrier, (b) a Staffordshire bull terrier, (c) an American Staffordshire terrier, (d) an American pit bull terrier, (e) a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those of dogs referred to in any of clauses (a) to (d)" in the definition of "pit bull"[9]. The APBT is discussed only in the context of the "pit bull" breeds.
  5. The current discussion on the Netherlands, which seems to have been found to be acceptable, does not restrict itself to the APBT
  6. The current discussion on the ban in Miami-Dade county, which seems to have been found to be acceptable, does not restrict itself to the APBT.
2. "Worldview"
It would be fairly trivial to de-emphasize the United States to give the proposed replacement text a more worldly flavor. How does this sound?

A large number of jurisdictions around the world, including countries in the Americas, Europe, and Asia, have enacted breed-specific legislation (BSL) in response to a number of well-publicized incidents involving American Pit Bull Terriers and other pit bull-type dogs[27]; some government organizations, such as the United States Army[28] and Marine Corps[29], and private sector entities such as commercial airlines[30] as have taken administrative action as well. These legislative actions range from outright bans on the possession of American Pit Bull Terriers to restrictions and conditions on ownership, and often establish a legal presumption that an American Pit Bull Terrier is prima facie a legally "dangerous" or "vicious" dog. Astro$01 (talk) 00:18, October 6, 2009 UTC

No, that text isn't good, on the grounds that it's still almost entirely taken from the text on the pit bull article. *sigh* Let me think about this a little more, and I'll figure out what should be here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Before you go to all that trouble, perhaps it would help if you provided a reference to the specific Wikipedia policy or editing guideline(s) upon which you have based your objection. Astro$01 (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Break[edit]

Alright, I looked into it and there actually isn't a policy against copying text verbatim. Having said that, I would like to think that we can do better than to just steal some text from another article and change "pit bull" to "APBT". To that end, I would propose something like the following (I'm writing this in haste, so it's messy):

For more details on this topic, see Pit bull § Legislation.
In Canada, Norway, and Florida, APBTs are subject to the same breed-specific legislation as pit bulls.[1][2][3] APBTs are the most commonly used dogs for dog fighting,[4] despite it being illegal in 49 states in the US.[5]

In doing so, we keep all of the pit bull text on the pit bull page, and have APBT-specific stuff here. Keeping everything separated out will make everyone's lives easier: if nothing else, any updates to the pit bull law section will have to be made only once, not twice. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The text proposed here does not read like an encyclopedic summary. For example, it says that APBTs are subject to the same breed-specific legislation as pit bulls (actully, "pit bull-type dogs") in three jurisdictions; but APBT restrictions apply in hundreds of locations other than those listed here because APBTs are pit bulls in the eyes of the law: once you start down the path of listing jurisdictions, you are on the path to recreating the breed-specific legislation page which, incidentally, I split out of the pit bull page several weeks ago when its content overwhelmed the pit bull-specific information. I would also leave the dog fighting discussion out of this section since dog fighting laws pertain to any dog and not just APBTs. There is also a separate dog fighting page.
I was unaware that Florida BECAME A NATION OR CONTINENT! Either a source claimed is regional, hence not recognized as a NATIONAL source, or ANY city/state is a nation, hence our CURRENT WORLD DOES NOT EXIST, as Bush is STILL president and indeed, EMPEROR! Or something equally insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wzrd1 (talkcontribs) 03:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you can really separate the APBT from the pit bull-type dog in a legal sense since BSL frequently defines the APBT to be a pit bull. The section under discussion is about "Law", so how about the following, which it seems to me is encyclopedic in nature; while borrowing fewer words from the pit bull article than my prior proposal:
For more details on this topic, see Pit bull § Legislation.

A large number of jurisdictions around the world, including countries in the Americas, Europe, and Asia, have enacted breed-specific legislation (BSL) in response to a number of well-publicized incidents involving American Pit Bull Terriers and other pit bull-type dogs[27]. These actions range from outright bans on the possession of American Pit Bull Terriers to restrictions and conditions on ownership, and often establish a legal presumption that an American Pit Bull Terrier is prima facie a legally "dangerous" or "vicious" dog.[28]

Borrowing words is not a Wikipedia sin (I already knew that and checked before I did it the first time), and it seems to me that it makes sense to borrow words (if they're appropriate, and especially if I wrote them in the first place) rather than try to "re-invent the wheel". Astro$01 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:V, we can only include text that is verifiable. So to make broad generalizations like "A large number of jurisdictions around the world" isn't acceptable without an appropriate source. In my example, I give three references, one for each location listed. If the two sources you give (I assume that would be 27 and 28 above) don't say "APBT" specifically, it cannot be used on this page. To take one source that says "APBTs fall under the jurisdiction of pit bulls" and another source that says "Pit bulls are banned" or whatever and draw a conclusion around that is a violation of WP:SYNthesis. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I was leaving the specific references out until the other issues were resolved, but if they have been resolved then here is the same text with live links attached; I added a reference to define "dangerous" and "vicious" since these legal terms are not defined elsewhere in the article:

A large number of jurisdictions around the world, including countries in the Americas, Europe, and Asia, have enacted breed-specific legislation (BSL) in response to a number of well-publicized incidents involving American Pit Bull Terriers and other pit bull-type dogs[6]. These actions range from outright bans on the possession of American Pit Bull Terriers to restrictions and conditions on ownership, and often establish a legal presumption that an American Pit Bull Terrier is prima facie a legally "dangerous" or "vicious" dog.[7][8]

- Astro$01 (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
You missed my point. The cite you list - http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20050217/pe2.htm - talks about Vancouver and the rest of Canada, and fourteen states in the US. That's not sufficient to verify "a large number of jurisdictions around the world, including countries in the Americas, Europe, and Asia." And the second reference - http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm#meaning - does not strike me as particularly reliable. We need secondary sources for this
Since you keep rejecting my text, I don't think we're going to come to terms on this. Unless you have any objections, I'm going to ask for a third opinion. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the first citation, please review Appendix C therein which identifies 12 countries with restrictive laws other than the United States and Canada . Regarding the second citation, I'm curious about what you find "unreliable": the author is a practicing attorney who specializes in dog bite cases, appears on U.S. television news broadcasts as an expert in the field, etc., so I would expect his write-up explaining legal terms like "dangerous dog" and "vicious dog" to have some initial credibility. Astro$01 (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
As you wish, but you may want to thoroughly read through the citations first.... Astro$01 (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Twelve countries is not "A large number of jurisdictions." And the twelve countries given there are all in Europe, so Asia is out. And I don't know why you can't move past the text you copied over; there really isn't anything spectacular about it. How about this:

Twelve countries in Europe,[9] Canada,[10][11] and Florida[12] have enacted some form of breed-specific legislation on pit bull-type dogs, ranging from outright bans to restrictions and conditions on ownership.[13][14] The dogs are often considered to be "dangerous" or "vicious".[15]

This way, we state exactly what is in the sources. I'm still not happy with that last sentence, but whatever. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I found the Asia reference: [16]. If you like, I can just start adding in the names of all of the countries with restrictions, one at a time, with a citation for each. I can also add a citation for each state in the United States that has APBT restrictions, since it looks like we will need a specific citation for each. Astro$01 (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Break 2[edit]

Alright. I've copied over the text from above. I was just thinking about how to modify this section, and if you're going to really add to the US part then we may need to spin that off into its own paragraph. I would also like to see the "enacted some form" text made more specific: something like "In Norway, it is X to own a APBT. In Singapore owners can X" and so on. Generalities get us into dangerous territory, and it's better to stick with the sources. At the same time, we also need to be careful of WP:WEIGHT - that we don't add undue weight to the law section and make it bigger than the rest of the article. But I don't see that happening just yet. I'm not sure how much I'm going to be able in terms of expanding the text over the next few days, though; real life and other Wiki things will be keeping me busy. I'm still going to keep a close eye on the page, though. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

References[edit]

Recent edits[edit]

Just for clarification, I reverted K84m97's edit for a number of reasons. Since it seems s/he's gone ahead and asked a number of admins about this, I figured I should explain why.

  • A bunch of the text was copied directly from a number of sources, including this link. More specifically, all of the text about the official breed standard is taken straight from that site. Forequarters, Hindquarters, and so on. The bottom of the page mentions the copyright, so unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't belong.
  • The editor took a whole article that was fairly well sourced and tossed it away in favor of text that was uncited, in violation of copyrights, and messy.
  • All of the added text was in list form. These are articles, not lists of facts.
  • The two images added aren't APBTs. One says "Colby's Pincher" and gives no indication that it's a pit bull terrier. The caption, "It's said that he was "The greatest fighting dog that ever lived"" is also pretty POV.

And the other thing is that the editor just made these edits and then yelled at me when I reverted. Aside from my following WP:BRD, they could have at least proposed the changes in a sandbox or something, or at least mentioned it here first. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong again.
1. wwhat you claim to be from a copyrighted site is from here UKC APBT STANDARD. Since this is the official breed standard it is the same everywhere. It's like the constitution. Forequarters, Hindquarters, and so on are from the official UKC standard UKC APBT STANDARD.
2. There was no copyright violation and the article wasn't well sourced.
3.This is an encyclopedia so list forms are welcomed.
4. The pictures are taken from two early APBTs and since this article is from the APBT it's clear that the APBTs are in the pictures.
5.This user always revert texts and well documented content like the Health section which was cited from the OFA statistic. I think this is vandalism.k84m97 (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you see at the top of the page you linked, where it says "Copyright 1978, United Kennel Club, Inc."? That means they still hold the copyright on it. You can't copy and paste text from it. And just because you add two images to an article doesn't mean that the images are representative of the topic. I could add a picture of a hamburger here, but that doesn't mean that APBTs are hamburgers, does it? As to the health section you added, what do those numbers even mean?
The other thing you need to understand is that some of the links you're giving are not reliable sources. Dogbreedinfo.com, for example. In the About section of that page, the author says that she's not associated with any big organization, and provides no real reason for why anything on her site is trustworthy. Since the site is self-published, it really can't be used as as a source here. You also use this site as a reference for saying "Spondylosis and Osteoarthritis are common place in older dogs." but there's no place on that site where that's actually stated. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
1You must understand that not the standard is copyrighted.IT'S THE SAME ALL OVER THE WORLD. You can just copy it because it's the same.The United States Gov. has an official site too but it doesn't mean that you can't copy the constitution ! ! !
2. So, you want to ad hamburger pictures on a article about dogs??
3. The numbers on the health section were the national OFA (Orthopedic Foundation for Animals)ranks. Read it ! !
4. I used a bit Dogbreedinfo but it is a lot better sources than those earlier posted.
5. Those diseases are on this site, look after them.k84m97 (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but those ranks mean nothing. There's no point in putting information into an article if only a handful of people will understand it. That information could theoretically be worked in if we could give it some actual meaning. What do the normal and abnormal columns mean? And Dogbreedinfo isn't better than a lot of the sources - it's unreliable. And I did look at the page that was linked. I searched down for 'Spondylosis' and 'Osteoarthritis' (and also 'Arthritis') and found nothing. It's not up to me to look through your sources; the burden of proof is on the person adding the text. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
In this case you should make clear what those values mean because we understand them. They are the same all over the USA. But you just revert all the texts and write lie about my edits like I used copyrighted sites like the Canadian Government's statistics, an other site which I don't even cited. About spondyosis in APBT you can find informations here Lamb CR. The canine lung. In: Thrall DE (Ed). Textbook of Veterinary Diagnostic Radiology, 2nd edition. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co, 1994. but maybe you will cry again that this is too complicated for you and you don't understand it.k84m97 (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Also your current edits are lie, you say that APBT "tends to have a high incidence of hip dysplasia" this is a lie, my source from the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals clearly stated that they are ranked at 26 OFA, you cited a source which doesn't exists Page Not Found. I can't wait for a moderator because this is vandalism.k84m97 (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Uh, you may want to tone down your attacks on me. The new Health section I added uses references 10 and 11; the one you're complaining about is #12. And you should check the source on #11, as this article does actually reflect what's in the source. As to your OFA link, 26 out of the 153 does make it relatively popular - though making a judgment based on that source would be original research. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
So, this wil be the new health section: "The average life expectancy of an American pit bull terrier is about twelve years.[10] The breed tends to have a high incidence of hip dysplasia." How long have you benn in this breed?k84m97 (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
OFA results are accepted in the USA.It's not a research project, it's a database used by the AKC, UKC ADBA and FCI.k84m97 (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Nowhere did I say that this is the entire health section. It's really only a start, but any text that is added should be verifiable and accurately reflect the source. And again, we could theoretically use the OFA results if we could provide some actual meaning to them aside from "OFA rank:12, Percent Abnormal 9.1%, Percent Normal 81.8%". Adding that to an article means nothing to someone who isn't very well versed on OFA statistics. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Side note - you've now informed five six different admins about this conversation. Are you going to just keep campaigning for your cause? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
NO, I want to improve this article but you always revert others edits. Why you revert? Where you find a flout try to correct it. Don't remove the whole contribution. You removed the pictures, someone who do not know the breed now have no clue how they looked 100 years ago. You also removed the Standard (the officialbreed description) which was original. You removed the whole History and a big part of it was very well documented from Colby's book. Also the Health section was well written. I just want to share information with others about these breeds. You aren't really interested since you remove all the edits instead of correct them.k84m97 (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The fact is that a large portion of your edit was identified as being from a copyrighted source. It doesn't matter if you took it from another article here - all that means is that it should be removed from that page as well. But we have rules here that we have to follow. You can't take a whole page that is well sourced (there are references for almost all the sentences) and replace it with unsourced text. By doing so, you're drastically reducing the quality of the article. Having said that, I'm going to try to work your edits into the article, but with actual sources and without all that copyright infringement. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Break[edit]

So here, I've added in some parts of the text you included. And I added a link to the standard in the External links section. I think that's a better place for it; it'd be too much to give the whole standard in the article, and if people are curious about it they can follow the link. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pit Bull--NOT a body type but a breed[edit]

Why is there an entire article called "pitbull"?? It says that a pitbull is not a breed but a body type. When people say pit bull, they mean the one and only American Pit Bull Terrier. This article on the apbt is way too short, just goes to show what the media does to a good breed. I've tried to make this article bigger before but people keep on reverting and making it shorter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.27.162 (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


Actually, in today's world, the term "pit bull" has come to refer to all bully breeds. Like it or not, that's the way it is now. Any dog that looks like an APBT is considered a pit bull. 71.31.30.126 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Pitbulls as Opposed to Other Dogs in Temperment[edit]

For all of you little wikinazis, yes this is meant to help the article. If you look up the English Bulldogs History it was used as a bull baiter. Basically it was used to bite and chomp at bulls and kill them for sport. In the 180s the Bulldog was not a friendly creature but due to selectice breeding they are now the lovable little guys we all think are cute. My point is that by doing selective breeding like this the APBT could become more docile and hopefully its reputation would improve. IS there a group that does this? I think that would be a welcome benefit to the article. --65.2.10.12 (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, facepalm. The original English Bulldog is extinct. The English bulldog we have now is mostly pug. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
They're quite capable of emitting death rays with their eyes, but most choose not to, since then they'll risk their provisions of free food every day. Otherwise true (including "little"). Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, Rursus. The studies testing temperament done in Southern Saxony Germany [1] and by the ATTS [2] don't show there is a difference in temperament compared to other breeds thought to be non-aggressive. Dwightlathan77 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
You guys have have flat misunderstood the ATTS information. That is not a test of agression its a situation test including avoidance behavior. The aggression aspect of the test in fact is based on the breed standard and as such is ABSOLUTELY not comparable to other dog breeds. The current reference of this is misleading and wrong. Desildorf (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


This is due to self-selection bias Dwight. My how I would love if people had basic math/logic skills. Too much to hope for among pit nutters, however.

Misconceptions[edit]

Hey guys, i just added a new section in the article section about Misconceptions about Pit bulls. I just touched on one of the subjects, but i am pretty sure you can write more about it, for instance: myths.Also i added "color coats" under Appearance. Let me know what you guys think of what i wrote. Thanks in advance!Orcuatortay (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Also check out www.texasdogbiteinjurylaw.com for articles comparing pit bulls to other breeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.29.41 (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The breed or the owners?[edit]

People don't like the breed because of its ability to fight. ITS NOT THE BREED. Its the owners. they breed it into the dog. creating bad genetics. contact me at duma108@yahoo.com to discuss.

~night-raven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toboe (talkcontribs) 14:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think people don't like the breed because its the most neglected breed in the world. Many of its owners don't know or care about teaching it how to behave, but keep it chained to a plywood doghouse. That's what we need to change. Dwightlathan77 (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


I think you both are off your rocker. You are incapable of actually parsing this situation out and refraining from using human conceptions of blame instead of simple cause-and-effect statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvguy8258 (talkcontribs) 03:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier[edit]

The irish staffordshire bull terrier whether or not its a breed of its own should have its own page not put as a link to the APBT.Though ISBT may be used on the APBT occasionally its a name closer to the staffordshire bull terrier whether or not it is the same or a breed that came from the staffie. At the very least it should have a section of its own in the staffordshire bull terrier page regardless what one feels about the breed name or nickname whatever you wish to call the irish staffie.The controversy caused the term in the world of dog fanciers cant just be deleted ignored and then used as a nickname for the 3 main pitbull breeds regardless of what you feel about it. Its just a name for a dog for gods sake its ridiculous how people take it so seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dman31619 (talkcontribs) 20:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

this page is horrible[edit]

This page is written by pit bull fanciers/advocates for other advocates and for a naive public. It references known pit bull propagandists like Bad Rap and Karen Delise's organization. It is a shame that it is not even objective enough to mention dog-directed aggression and gameness. Too controversial for you all? Too bad anyone making a breed decision would need this information and you are actually endangering people. Also, the ATTS test breed comparison is totally illegitimate due to something called self-selection bias. This is the worst case scenario as the variable of interest directly controls the probability of being in the sample. They president of the ATTS org admitted that only 6 out of 1,000s tested have flunked for stranger aggression. This shows that people do not bring in dogs that will likely fail. The percentage of "obvious test failures" are weeded out by breed and the percentage varies by breed. In other words, could you get an accurate comparison of penis length between two counties by asking for volunteers to be measured at the local bars. The answer is obviously no. I'm not surprised no one saw or recognized this as this article is written by kool-aid drinkers. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The ATTS test also has different standards for different breeds (as in a husky can be more aggressive than a lab and still pass). This means it cannot be used for comparison. Anonopotamous 18:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desildorf (talkcontribs)


problems with this article[edit]

This article is written by people without an objective view on this breed. I cannot assume good faith when it is so obvious. This article does not mention two of the most important traits someone considering getting one should be aware of: gameness and higher likelihood of dog-directed aggression. This page is actually dangerous to those with other dogs considering getting an APBT.

Further, the limitations of the ATTS test (especially when it is used for inter-breed comparison) are not discussed whatsoever.

Wikipedia would be better off with no article on this breed at all than one like this.

Shame on the people controlling this article. But alas you cannot reason with zealots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvguy8258 (talkcontribs) 03:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is community edited. If you have some changes/edits by all means present them for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.167 (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

yall come off as mad because your hate couldnt get past our editors... you call shame and shout your disagreement... but you havent produced any sources for your hate against a loving breed.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.181.1 (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I added something to the temperament section[edit]

I'm sure my addition will be scrubbed as this article is NOT like any other breed description. It is a sales pitch primarily.

from the UKC breed description found here

http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Breeds/AmericanPitBullTerrierRevisedNovember12008

among other places

" Because most APBTs exhibit some level of dog aggression and because of its powerful physique, the APBT requires an owner who will carefully socialize and obedience train the dog."


If you folks will not recognize one of the breed's defining traits, that even places like Bad Rap will acknowledge, then you have no business with this article. By not telling people that pit bulls have a higher likelihood to be aggressive toward other dogs, you are indirectly endangering other animals. Do you care? Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, my addition (with citation to the UKC) was removed. Pit bull advocates running this page HAVE NO SHAME. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm a pit bull owner and fully agree. Early and reinforced socialization with other animals is a MUST with this breed and quite a few other breeds. That said, Helen Keller didn't have any issues and she was blind, deaf and dumb.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The Puppy Picture[edit]

That is not an APBT. It looks to be a large breed mix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.57.154 (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


i agree. the puppy picture on the deck is absolutely NO an ABPT - it looks more alike to a Vizsla. no wonder the average person cannot identify a PB - Wiki community can't either!

Comparatively Speaking[edit]

The article, as of 12/03/04, is not entirely egregious. Some effort has been made toward a critical appraisal of the breed but a lot more could be done. And then Wiki should lock it down. Compare The Pet Wiki (no affiliation with Wikipedia- I hope!-) discussing both branches of the pit bull : "... today both breeds are bred for gentleness." !!! Orthotox (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Factual accuracy tag[edit]

I see zero input on the talk page. Please put your objections here or risk having the tag removed.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Remove Famous Pit Bulls section[edit]

I think that section Famous Pit Bulls is unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory. Therefore, I suggest removing this section. Nazgul02 (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a copyvio of http://www.cesarsway.com/packgallery/packprofiles/Pit-Facts, so I've removed it. David1217 What I've done 03:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

this should be removed[edit]

"According to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Pit Bull type breeds have been responsible for approximately 30% of Dog Bite Related Fatalities (DBRF) in the USA between 1979 and 1998, with the majority of those victims being children. [8] It is important to note that the aforementioned CDC study "does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. 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." [9]"

This section in the temperament section is horrid. The CDC numbers are brought up but then serious dog bites are minimized in the next paragraph. 22:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvguy8258 (talkcontribs)

Fine by me. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Not happy with wording[edit]

"The fact that Pit Bulls are an extremely dangerous breed to humans is well-documented"

This is over exaggerated and not a "fact". Point of clarification it isn't the breed it is the way the dog is raised. That's like saying a particular car is extremely dangerous to humans because more sociopaths have owned them and killed people with them. Maybe rewrite something about the dog's training having to do with danger to humans. Pit bulls are NOT inherently evil and I find it disgusting that this article would depict them that way. This should be non-skewed view point. State actual facts, not "facts" that serve your purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.170.29 (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. It was added in this edit, but I have a feeling it was done by mistake. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Old Family Red Nose be merged into this article; since it's a variety of APBT that is notable, but not really notable enough to need its own article. --TKK bark ! 00:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I second this proposal. This section should be incorporated or removed altogether. "Old Family" and "Red Nose" are not primary characteristics that are recognized by the ADBA, the authoritative registry of the APBT. They are simply recessive traits that occur from litter to litter as noted by the articles original author. --Dablyputs (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I third it. With zero opposition, I suggest that it just be done. The proposal has now been open for over two months.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

CKC and other kennel clubs[edit]

Many different kennel clubs have an APBT dog. It appears much of this page is based on the UKC APBT. For example the article states the weight of an APBT is "Male = 35-65lbs Female 30-60lbs", but the CKC says "Weight: (Approx.) 45-90 Lbs". Other clubs have different weights or indicates weight doesn't matter as much as proportion. This is only one aspect of the dogs that differ. How we we describe the 30+ APBT breeds that exist in all the different kennel clubs? Should we have separate pages for the different breeds of APBT or should try to include the different APBT breeds in this one article?74.177.42.156 (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If by CKC you mean Continental Kennel Club, then any information you put up from them is liable to be challeneged as they are not a reliable source. If you mean Canadian Kennel Club, throw it up and reference it. Most of those APBT breeds are not notable (no secondary reliable sources) so there's no need to include them, really.--TKK bark ! 12:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

First paragraph of temperament section, citation acually from two different souces mixed together[edit]

The first paragraph of the "Temperament" section reads

According to the UKC,"This breed is eager to please and brimming over with enthusiasm. APBTs make excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children.[7] The APBT is a powerful and often times fearless dog with a high drive to please his master. Unfortunately, unfit owners at times have misused the APBT's trusting nature, training PitBull's for aggression and the results can be adverse.[8] The breed’s natural agility makes it one of the most capable canine climbers so good fencing is a must for this breed. This breed does very well in performance events because of its high level of intelligence and its willingness to work." [9]

As it is now, it reads as a direct citation from UKC although only first and last part are from UKC (http://www.ukcdogs.com/Web.nsf/Breeds/AmericanPitBullTerrier12012012), the middle part is from the page http://mrpitbull.com/PitbullTemperament.html (and although close, it is not a direct citation, see below). This is probably an oversight, resulting from editors not paying attention to the citation marks and the whole structure of the paragraph. But as it stands now, it is misleading.

How the paragraph should read instead, and what sources would be suitable is another question, which I leave for others with more knowledge of the subject to decide. But since both sources used now mentions tendencies for dog agression it might be seen as misrepresenting the source not to include that as well.

Below is the UKC text which the fist and last part of the paragraph came from:

This breed is eager to please and brimming over with enthusiasm. APBTs make excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children. Because most APBTs exhibit some level of dog aggression and because of its powerful physique, the APBT requires an owner who will carefully socialize and obedience train the dog. The breed’s natural agility makes it one of the most capable canine climbers so good fencing is a must for this breed. The APBT is not the best choice for a guard dog since they are extremely friendly, even with strangers. Aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable. This breed does very well in performance events because of its high level of intelligence and its willingness to work.

Below is the direct quote of the sentences from http://mrpitbull.com/PitbullTemperament.html used in the Wikipedia article. It is almost the same as what is in the Wikipedia article, but American Pitbull and Pitbull has been changed to APBT. Since there are a number of dogs referred to as Pitbulls, I am not sure that APBT is actually what was originally meant, or if it was meant to refer to the broader category. And of course, if stated to be a direct citation, it should really be so.

Yes, the AMERICAN PITBULL is a powerful and often times fearless dog with a high drive to please his master. Unfortunately, unscrupulous individuals at times have misused the Pit's trusting nature, training PitBull's for aggression and the results can be adverse.

Pastisch (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You are mixed up. The reason for the breed's traits is because they were selectively breed for bull baiting and dog fighting. They weren't misused for dog fighting, they were genetically designed by humans for it. A breed created by sadists for activities now illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.19.87.71 (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Pastisch, thanks for picking that up; I'm not sure exactly when it occurred but the ref to a personal/commercial website should not have been included. As a quick fix, I've simply copied the UKC paragraph about characteristics as a quote. Hopefully someone will eventually come along and put the paragraph into their own words based on the UKC quote. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite advice?[edit]

I'd like to improve this page substantially, and I wanted to check in about how people think it could be most improved. I specifically want to change the Temperament section, add a lot more information about the controversy surrounding pit bulls and the breed's progression in public opinion to its current state, add more statistics from study findings and academic sources in general, and expand the Law section to explain what exactly Breed Specific Legislation means in different countries or regions. The main problem that I see is that just from a moderate search for information related to APBTs, it is difficult to find an objective source. Most sources that would otherwise seem reliable appear to fall into two camps: overcorrecting to regain the breed's positive reputation, or overly negative. I'm curious about advice on how to navigate objectivity with regard to this topic. Thanks for all input!

Shelly (HPR) (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

ATTS[edit]

I had to delete some bogus and misrepresented primary source material sourced from the ATTS. ATTS information has been debated. Each time it is determined that the opions of the ATTS is not vetted nor scientific and should not be included as such in any article. Mantion (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Same pic appears as Staffordshire and Pit Bull.[edit]

The picture alongside the temperament section here also appears as an example of American Staffordshire Terrier in that article. If someone knows what the dog really is, please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.128.13 (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://s3.amazonaws.com/bf-filestorage/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00/00/03/02/87/Attached+Files/8625.LowerSaxonyGermany.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=1TWF5R424CKA5BHB92R2&Expires=1309486744&Signature=sGZEH1D7myYlVowTCinFvlDqvEo%3d
  2. ^ http://atts.org/