Talk:Pit bull/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Missing words

Under the History section there appear to be some words missing; "Typically a dog would do this by biting the bull on the nose and holding on until the bviolently struggling bull despite injury." I noticed others elsewhere but cannot find them again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.105.121 (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Who reads this article

Keep in mind when editing that this article is not just visited by opponents and advocates. It is used as a place to do research by the news media, legislators, students doing reports, and others. So, in that regard, link references to news stories about this very controversial topic, both positive and negative are very valuable and should not be considered trivia. 5Q5 14:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've known many pitbulls and they are not any more dangerous than any other breed. --Huntsmanguy 00:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Statistics show otherwise, that they ARE more dangerous than other breeds. Edps 20:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? In a recent seven-year study, statistics also showed that LABRADORS and COCKER SPANIELS (not Pit Bulls) are the most dangerous dogs when it comes to bites. In my opinion, the only thing separating these breeds and their fatal bites is their "good nature." I bet that if a Labrador was sold to a person who likes to abuse dogs, this fact would be proven true. User:dogofdoom 11:28, December 24, 2007

Key difference: Labradors bite people - once. Pit bulls savagely maul people until they are dead. Lies, damn lies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.107.117.245 (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not that they are MORE DANGEROUS because of personality.....the media is so off base with this. All dogs even a poodle can be aggressive if they have irresponsible owners. The reason pitt bulls are considered more dangerous is that they have weird jaws. This causes more damage. According to the CDC, half of the fatalities caused by dogs are from Rottweilers and pitt bulls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.202.222 (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Just to further my point, there were 66 fatalities from pitt bulls and 39 from Rottweilers over the last 20 years in the U.s. according to JAMA (2000)- Vol 217, No. 6. Labradors and Cocker Spaniels did not make the list. There are plenty of scholarly articles that describe that they have a bigger than normal jaw that have different physical capabilities.

I'm interested in both sides of the coin here. Why? Because I own a Pit Bull Terrier, who we adopted from the street of all places.

We found "Suzi", or perhaps more accurately, she found us, following me to and from working on a neighbouring property. She had been abandoned in our small rural Spanish village, and was in such a terrible physical condition, that we actually didn't know what breed of dog she was for sure. At this point I have to be completely honest and say had we known from the offset she was a Pit Bull Terrier, especially given the negative PR and news coverage, we might not have taken her in, but instead, taken her to be destroyed.

We did however take her to the vet. It turned out she had multiple ailments and injuries, as well as being almost skeletally thin and malnourished. In her paws she had thorns which had become infected and needed removal and treatment. She had mange and other fungal skin infections. Worst of all perhaps, was after a blood test, it was discovered she had a "terminal" count for Leishmania, a debilitating parasitic disease passed by the Sand Fly, which affects the immune system and as yet has no 100% proven cure in canines.

We took the decision that we would attempt treatment prescribed by the vet, along with any love and care we could give her, in the vain hope she might get better, or at least "know" care, attention and comfort for what time she might have left. She actually responded to the treatment and care better than expected and a return visit to a surprised vet a fortnight later, who expected her to be dead, was when we first found out that she was a Pit Bull Terrier. We were quite surprised, but had our suspicions as she was already starting to gain weight and look healthier.

I'm happy to say that we've had her nearly two years since then. Remarkably, the Leishmania is 100% clear and she is in "perfect" physical condition. Her case, records and regular blood samples have been forwarded to veterinary universities in Madrid and Barcelona by our vet, who describes her recovery as nothing short of miraculous. Our vet believes that her recovery may actually help find a cure for the disease in canines, such is the rarity of "cured" cases.

Since we have owned her, I am of the opinion that she has become the most loving, faithful and "naturally" obedient dog I've owned. She is well known locally because of her wonderful temprement, bearing in mind that I live in Southern Spain, where extreme caution for the breed is certainly not uncommon, and the breed is still, albeit illegally, actively bred for fighting. Despite appearances, we always ensure that she is suitably controlled and responds to instruction. In getting to know her nature, I can see clearly how easily responsive to training and care she is.

This leads me obviously to form an opinion, which readers are welcome to agree with or criticise, based on their own experiences. I am an open minded person, though my comments might fairly be viewed as biased, being an owner. My experience with this dog leads me to believe, that not unlike ANY breed, a Pit Bull Terrier can be a wonderful and loyal pet, given correct training, care and above all, responsibility - responsibility for me is the operative word.

The loyal and responsive nature of my dog, leads me to the assumption that given the positive way she has responded to my good care and training, a Pit Bull Terrier in an uncaring, irresponsible environment, could quite easily be the exact opposite in nature. Realistically, one could quite easily be trained to be a weapon. With this in mind, I would draw a comparison between "dangerous" dogs as weapons and guns as weapons. There is a widely known phrase - "Guns don't kill people - people (use guns) kill people". I would draw on the same phrase with dangerous dogs. Irresponsible handling of dangerous dogs in my opinion is the single biggest cause for attacks. I actually agree with banning of breeds in certain environments. Unfortunately the ownership of certain breeds is seen as a status symbol of masculinity or "machismo".

I personally hold irresponsible owners responsible for many of the negative actions of their dogs. I would also ask those who brand dogs "dangerous", out of hand, with no first hand experience of both sides to the argument, to look into things a little deeper. I myself was attacked by a German Shepherd as a child, yet this does not make me scared or have a hatred for German Shepherds. My attack was not the fault of the dog in question, but the fault of the irresponsible owners, who neglectfully had this large dog shut in a small room daily with little food, water or exercise. I just happened to be in the way one day that it escaped from the house.

So please, before condemning any of the breeds, such as the "notorious" Pit Bull Terrier, please look at both sides of the argument in an equal manner. A dangerous dog in the wrong hands, is equally as dangerous as a car driven by a drunkard, a gun in the hands of someone who intends to use it on another. The common factor in all these equations is the HUMAN element.

Written by Heath Chesters, Granada, Spain (British Expatriate) - 21st March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathchesters (talk • contribs) 21:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Chesters:

Good for you! I live in New York City and I am most definitely a dog lover: I often lend a hand at the SPCA uptown. One of the most common breeds up for adoption in New York is the pit bull and its mixes, and in truth the only bad eggs I have met at my gig are usually ones that have never been socialized, are inbred, or, bluntly put,are unloved: this is the secret ingredient that I am sure makes your Suzi a happy and sweet girl (btw, has she done any "zoomies" yet? You will know it when you see it; it is a victory lap but more gleeful....) There are indeed some pitbulls that are beyond help, and some folks around here have the nip marks to prove it.

I have also seen some nasty things at work: New York City has a native dogfighting problem as well. I have seen these poor damned souls come in ripped to pieces so badly they are too swollen up to eat properly, sometimes it is the OWNERS that do this rather than the dogs they fight. I've seen demodex mange eat a dog alive because some pigheaded evil man was too cheap to take her to a vet (but certainly not above using her to gamble; thankfully they arrested the @#$#.) I've seen a pit bull so skeletally thin it would remind you of scenes from Auschwitz-apparently dog fighters think this is the way to make a dog particularly mean.

Those were the lucky ones. Sometimes the cops get there too late and the dog is already dead or dying, bleeding to death on a plywood floor. The dogs that die really don't know any other life: the saddest thing I have figured out about working with a fighting dog is he probably thought as he was in the heat of battle something like "if I rip this dog apart, my master will finally love me." He doesn't know he could die in the process. He doesn't realize his owner's main motivation is money, pure and simple-if the law bans pit bulls, he will move on to another breed (some South American type dogs and mastiff crosses are starting to show up upstairs in the hospital, I might add, with the same pattern of wounds.) It is sometimes too much for me to watch-dog banning laws completely ignore the human factor.

On the other hand, I also have seen the happy endings: take Moo, for example. Moo was found in late fall in a dumpster. It took months for them to nurse her back to health-not only was she abused, she was very sick, left there to die probably because she was used as "bait" for her siblings. She, like a lot of dogs that are rescued from these rings, was adopted (incidentally by a family friend.) When I last saw her she was a beautiful,happy-go-lucky seven year old dog with the same markings as a Holstein cow and the same lust for life I saw in her when she was eighteen months old. (Moo's sole goal in life is to eat her weight in Frosty Paws, a kind of doggy ice cream.) Stories like Moo's do not need condemnation, sir, but compassion: the good news is that there is a great deal more awareness here in NYC about what actually goes on, meaning more and more adoptions, and I admit I get a good laugh when I meet foreign visitors who denounce this breed at the top of their lungs but typically cannot pick out the half dozen pits that have passed them on the street in the past hour. I agree this is a large, powerful dog that needs training, care, and kindness-I don't see Moo so much as a loaded gun but as a member of a breed that has been bred for over a century to be very loyal to its master and will do anything for her master's approval. I think a better approach would be going after the @#$#@$ crooks on one front and better awareness of the plight of dog fighting breeds.

Enjoy Suzi-she seems to know a good thing when she sees one.

PS-An update: A day or two ago coming home from a bookstore I saw an adoption drive booth nearby in the park with two small pitbull puppies, roughly 2 months old. The black one had just been adopted by a lady I know and as far as I can tell Buster is a good little citizen-when I went to see my friend Buster climbed into my lap, did two circles, kneaded the top of my legs, and curled up as close as he could get to be petted to sleep. Ooh, yeah, this one is vicious.

signed, MKG in NYC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.194.216 (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Statistics

Clearly there are abundant statistics available about this breed and it's claimed aggressiveness. As for the article leaving out this important source makes it sound biased for the so called advocates. 83.250.204.168 18:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Yoki

Yes, the "Urban Myths" section is particularly bad in this respect. Pit Bulls are psychologically different than other breeds; scientific samples of hormones reveal considerably higher concentrations of aggression-related hormones. Pit Bulls were bred to bring bulls into submission by locking on to their noses and never letting go, so the lockjaw belief isn't perfectly accurate, but it isn't a myth either. This article smells like it's written by self-appointed experts who themselves probably own pit bulls. Ken 09:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

About the locking jaw theory, Pitbull's jaw do NOT lock.. they have no locking mechanics in the jaw bone. BUT the muscles surrounding the mouth, jaw, is overly devolped. Which means, in some cases, a dog can't let go..Example would be a pit hanging by rope with it's teeth and then being shot with a tranquilizer - the dog would still be hanging there until the jaw muscles could relax. And since they are overly devolped, could take a couple of minutes. 71.210.12.13 (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)woodsprite

Do you have a reliable source for this "aggression-related hormone" theory? And yes, the lockjaw is indeed a myth. Tenacity does not equal "locking." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've talked to my vet about an "aggression related hormone" and there is no such thing.And also ,Bulldogs were bred to bring bulls into submission NOT pitbulls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntsmanguy (talk • contribs) 00:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your vet is mistaken. There are hormones and other natural chemicals that cause animals (and people) to become more aggressive, such as testosterone. There are also hormones linked to increased risk-prone behavior and belligerence. Eno-Etile 06:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Eno-Etile, but it's not the hormones alone that makes a Pit Bull aggressive. If you take a Golden retriever and abuse it since 8 weeks old, do you think it would be friendly to strangers and other family members? What about properly training and socializing a Pit Bull? Which of these two dogs would be more likely to attack something or someone? User:dogofdoom 11:33, December 24, 2007

They are cute and sweet. My dog is 11 years old and he's NOT agressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.106.201 (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a very good paper on a study of breed behavior and temperament that provide some better reference for this article. DowdAPBTbehavior

Can someone provide a reference for the hormone claim. I have been scouring the web for information on this and I am not finding anything I would consider a valid reference that claims of any breed specific aggression hormone related issues with American Pit Bull Terriers. Most of my reading has shown that pit bull aggression as well as most dog aggression problems stem from training issues. JohnCMorgan (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)JCM

Photo caption - "A Smiling Pit Bull"

In the Media Coverage section, how is it known that particlar pit bull in the photo is smiling? And if so, to keep things neutral, shouldn't there also be a photo of an angry pit bull? 5Q5 13:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The photo was used to show off the pit bull's unique ability to 'smile'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.56.8 (talk) 01:00, August 29, 2007 (UTC) 20:56,30 August 2007

That has nothing to do with a lack of neutrality. Granted, pit bulls have the unique ability to smile, which is a fact that should be included on an informational website, just like the fact that the breed Basenji doesn't bark. That is not a bias in any way, and to put a picture of an angry pit bull is to use bias to portray them in a negative light. That would be much like putting a picture of Miss America without makeup and making an angry face at the camera. The picture itself is neutral, it just shows a characteristic of the dog with no bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.150.78 (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record on the smiling pitbull issue.

It's your dull mind that assigned a positive connotation to the image of the open mouthed pitbull. As much as you want to believe that a pitbull, looking so cute as it does, it simply not true. The Cranial facial nerves and muscle movements don't react the same way as humans, we smile in a meek effort to show gratitude, happiness, and a myriad of other things. Which means a dog doesn't smile when it's happy. Sorry folks, but it's science. So as a pitbull owner I apologize if my dog's smile no longer comes off as genuine, and cunning but he never meant to smile at you to show that he was happy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.35.240 (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry to intrude but my american staffordshire terrier, Sierra actually smiles when she is happy!! she doesnt just show her teeth because she is ignorant but you can tell she is a smart dog and realizes that smiling is something to be done when she is happy, just as wagging her tail is a sign of happiniess! if i could i would post several pictures of her but i just dont know how: thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.8.112 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Informal writing

There is informal writing all over of this article. Consider this:

There are often more dogs (many are mixed breeds which are lumped into the category of "pit bull") than there are owners.

Huh? There are more breeds than owners? I'm pretty sure this is an exaggeration, but I'm not even sure what the exaggeration is supposed to mean. And this:

Owning a pit bull has its good points as well as the negative points.

A negative point? Good points? A negative point, that's well-made, can be a good point. And is ownership of a dog really a point, counter-point topic?

It is the owner's responsibility to be in total control of his dog(s), and it is the owner who, through intentional mistreatment or neglect, is responsible for over 90% of pit bull bites.

Starting with "It is the" once is bad enough, but don't do it twice in the same sentence. Further, the intent of the sentence is to state that most pit bull bites can be traced to a lack of proper training. This alone is unsourced, but even more informal is the phrase "over 90%" -- also unsourced.

Next, the list of pit-bull bans isn't sorted or otherwise really organized.

And I could go on and on. I took the word "somehow" out of the first sentence in the urban myths section. Unfortunately, the whole section, along with most of the article, needs a rewrite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.218.138.96 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC).

The world relies on statistics, as do controversial articles such as this one. I am in a position where i unfortunately hear more bad tales about this dog breed than most people. Sourcing statistics may be hard, as reports would be scattered across a number of lines of jurisdiction, but i guess if you dug hard enough it is possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike-s (talk • contribs) 14:23, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to say, "pitbull" is the default dog breed that many police department's use when no breed regarding the bite was chosen or could not be identified. "bully" breeds in general are reported as pitbulls - bulldogs, pitbulls, rotts, ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.12.13 (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Term 'Pit Bull'

The American Pit Bull Terrier has it's own page and this one is obviously for the term itself. However, a 'pit bull' isn't really a breed, and there doesn't seem to be enough emphasis. Though the beginning is good, the article is seemingly focused on the american pit bull terrier. It's main pictures are of apbts. Anyone care to fix this? It really needs to be told that 'pit bull' as a term isn't a breed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.56.8 (talk) 01:04, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

What is a 'pit bull'?

This article tries to tell us what a pit bull is 'not', but doesn't tell us what it 'is.' Also, I disagree with the assertion that calling an 'American pit bull terrier' a 'pit bull' is a mistake. That's a part-whole analysis fallacy...rather, an "American pit bull terrier' is a 'kind of pit bull.' The word exists for a reason...that there are different breeds doesn't mean the term can't be defined.Ryoung122 16:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition to page

The island of Curaçao is also banning pit bulls (nearly all kinds of). The plan is to drive the breeds extinct on the island trough castration and compulsory registration or putting the dog to sleep and fining the owner if they do no comply with the former. Since i'm not sure if i should go ahead and put it in the global section, here's an article (dutch tho) outlining the how's and why's. The article is here>> http://www.amigoe.com/artman/publish/artikel_35148.php . thanks. Dwerg85 12:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Pit Bulls mistreated by owners is an important subject, but it is actually a broader subject than that, due to the popularity of dog fighting. In 1990, A woman in Denver who owned three pit bulls, reported many instances where her dogs were stolen from her backyard, used for fighting, and dropped off in her absence, with wounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.199.184.202 (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

For Every One To Read first off i woul like to say that thier is only one "pit bull" the american pit bull terrier thier is no other dog that should be called a pit bull . The other breeds that every one wants to include in pit bulls all have thier own names and are thier own breeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.155.143.12 (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This info is all messed up !!

Pit bull is a slang term that describes several types of dogs with similar physical characteristics. There are several physically similar breeds that are often termed "pit bull", including the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the Bull Terrier, the Perro de Presa Canario, Cane Corso, and Argentine Dogos.These breeds are usually not included by name in any Breed Specific Legislation (see below), but are sometimes included because of a broad definition and confusion as to what a pit bull actually is. [1] All of these breeds as well as many others (including Great Danes, Newfoundlands and Rottweilers) are members of the Molosser family of dog breeds.

1: Pitbull is NOT a slang , its just one of the nicknames och shortened names the breed has had during the years. Those that use it for dogs other then Pitbulls are just ignorant and dont have the facts surrounding the breed clear to them. often used by journalists and people without any background info Its a pure breed dog , registered under UKC since 1898. its beeing registered under "American pitbull Terrier" under a few more registrys such as ADBA & BFKC in USA.

I dont know why this site, that is set to be some kind of "kowledge base" allows itself to have this info at the top of the page. All it does, is to confuse people that come in here to read and to find out more about the breed.

If this is the first thing a visitor reads , then it often sticks to his/her mind as "truth" and he leaves the site. If a reader comes in here to search facts because he/her is unsure about what a Pitbull is because of medias coverage, then this info just confirmes to him/her that there is no such thing as a real Pitbull, with is as far from the truth you may come. There are so many myths and hearsays around this breed , so i suggest the top info to be rewritten and only contain FACTS.

Many countries have their own Kennelclubs , and they are all tied together by FCI as an international organ. But FCI only works with 1 kennelclub per country and if a dog aint listed in that club , other countries follow FCI regulations and do the same. This is why FCI dossent recognize the Pitbull as a pure breed. They work with AKC (American Kennel Club) that dossent keep register of the Pitbull , But the American Staffordshire Terrier. Pitbulls as i said erlier, was first registered with UKC (United Kennel Club) and because only one club per country is allowed in FIC regulations the Pitbull was left outside due to a tecnicality.

This is the same in several countries. The national kennelclubs is tied to follow FCI regulations if they are members , and thats why Sweden for example dossent recognize the pitbull in their own kennel klub (SKK).

Why did i say all this then ? Well , it goes back to what i wrote erlier. If a person think that Pitbull just is a "slang" and not a pure breed as written at top of Wikipedia site about pitbulls , and lives in Sweden for example , then this sites info add more to the myths. So if a moderator reads this , please think hard about what signals the top text about Pitbulls sends out to this pages viewers. //Niklas - Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.119.32 (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Another pitbull story: http://www.ksat.com/news/14413827/detail.html Here's a response to the argument "it's not pitbulls that are the problem, it's irresponsible breeders/owners": fine; let's ban pitbulls, and then when the badbuys have moved on to the next breed of dog, ban those, and keep banning these dangerous breeds until we only have genetically friendly dogs like golden retrievers left in the gene pool. 99.233.27.82 19:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Jordan

-Genetically friendly? No such thing, sorry. Goldens, for example, can and will attack if raised improperly or provoked; I've witnessed one tear the face off a smaller dog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.56.34 (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I praise the above comment. There is no such thing as a "dangerous dog breed." Banning a breed that is "dangerous" like Pit Bulls does not mean that there will be no more dog attacks and dog bites. All dogs bite, whether it's a Golden retriever, Alsatian, a type of Spaniel, et cetera. If a friendly breed is raised in a home of abuse and neglect, it will most likely end up attacking something. The owners are surprised because "that dog's parents were well-trained and they've never bitten anyone before." Wrong: it was the owner's fault. No bad breeds, just bad owners. dogofdoom 11:43, December 24 2007

I can't be bothered to read all of that. Pit bull is used as a slang term. A slang term by definition is used informally and may seem incorrect to those not familiar with it. for instance if theres an article called "Fagot" (not trying to be offensive but its the best example I can think of) and it says that its a slang term used to describe homosexuals that would be a true assertion. That is not the only definition for the word of course-- the more proper and formal definition being that it refers to a torch or a bundle of sticks. but it is a real and valid one. Pit bull is a slang term used to describe certain dogs it is also part of the name of a few specific breeds of dogs. The American Pit Bull Terrier for instance. If you want information on those dogs you go to those specific articles. Also I'm pretty sure there is no breed of dog just called "pitbull." Eno-Etile 05:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, slang is not simply an informal term that may lend itself to misinterpretation. Slang is almost always used wittingly in place of more formal or proper terms for the intended purpose of adding or imparting a humorous, jocular, racey, sarcastic, metaphorical, catchy, and sometimes taboo meaning or connotation. For example, if someone used the expression 'buzzsaw on legs' as a name for pit bulls, that is slang. 'Fruitcake' would be slang for a crazy, irrational, or strange person. 'Bought the farm' is slang for died. So on and so forth.

When the intended meaning or connotation rises to the level of hateful, disparaging, abusive, insulting, or dehumanizing, particularly when aimed toward an ethnic or racial group, slang becomes slur. A slang or slur that is used in ignorance of the meaning or connotation typically intended, is neither slang nor slur. Slang must be used wittingly, not in ignorance. The term you may have been looking for is 'misnomer'; a misapplied, unsuitable, or inappropriate name or designation.--Brewster1971 20:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia and dictionary.com side more with my definition. Slurs are just disparaging words and slurs can be slang; being a slur doesn't disqualify a word from being a slang term. And the discussion of slurs has nothing to do with this article (although it does have something to do with my example). And pit bull is not misapplied to this breeds of dogs since many of them are breeds of dogs with "pit bull" as part of the name. Also I'm pretty sure that a "nickname" when not applied to a specific singular person place or thing (yay nouns) is a slang term.Eno-Etile 09:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to alphabetize breed ban cities

I feel that it would be easier for people to keep updated on pit bull specific legislation if the entries were alphabetized by state and city. Vladlvr 04:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It would definately make viewing the table easier. Good idea! - Rjd0060 04:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

APBT

Why are there so many APBT pictures? This is an article for the slang term 'pit bull', not the American Pit Bull Terrier. Shouldn't there also be pictures of the other breeds deemed 'pit bulls'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.56.8 (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, 'pit bull' in this case is not slang, unless it is applied to some other kind of animal, object, or person, with the connotation of being dangerous or ferocious. e.g. I've heard someone use 'pit bull' (alternatively 'Cujo') as a jocular name for his dog, which nobody would confuse for a pit bull. It was a small fluffy lap-dog with a bad temperament, easily encouraged into displays of aggression, with lots of snarling, teeth bearing, and snapping (which the owner found humorous because the dog was hardly capable of inflicting more than superficial injury, except to an infant or other completely defenseless creature). That would be an example of slang.

Those of the mind that 'pit bull' is some kind of registered trademark exclusively reserved to the breed named APBT, might find 'misnomer' the correct term for whenever the name 'pit bull' is applied to any non-APBT. However, even that view and its underlying basis has serious if not insurmountable flaws.

The APBT has no documented history as a distinct breed before the founding of UKC in 1898. Fighting dogs descending directly from Staffordshire Bull Terriers and/or other closely related Bull and Terrier crosses brought to the United States, then further cross-bred to select for American preferences over English or Irish, were often called Pit Dogs, Pit Bulls, Pit Terriers, Pit Bull Terriers, Pit Bulldogs, American Bull Terriers, and probably a few other variations on the theme, well before ABPT was defined as a distinct breed by UKC. UKC founder Chauncy Bennet and his fellow APBT promoters tried-on several variations before settling on one:

In 1898, a man by the name of Chauncy Bennet formed the United Kennel Club (UKC) for the purpose of registering "Pit Bull Terriers", as the American Kennel Club wanted nothing to do with them. Originally, he added the word "American" to the name and dropped "Pit". This didn't please all of the people so later the word "Pit" was added back to the name in parentheses as a compromise.

— rec.pets.dogs: APBT Breed FAQ

It is likely that founding APBT promoters borrowed or combined elements from the 'known names' of blood lines that - for them - embodied the 'perfect' dog. Nobody knows, really, as ABPT is one of the most poorly documented of all 'recognized' new world breeds, and inexcusably continued to be for more than 30 years after the ABPT breed standard was defined. However, we do know the common name 'pit bull' was about as reliably indicative of a distinct breed or blood line as the name "bull terrier" or "bulldog", applied to numerous fighting and gaming blood lines varyingly of mixed English or Irish Bull and Terrier heritage.

Add to this that AKC accepted APBT into its AST stud-books as recently as 1970. UKC doesn't care - APBT and AST are different blood lines of the same breed in their view. The largest APBT registry that has billed itself as dedicated to protecting the original "fighting" APBT standard from dilution is the American Dog Breeders Association (ADBA), which was founded in 1909 exclusively for this purpose. Even the ADBA accepts AST and APBT alike as APBTs, or did for many years.

There is no good reason these 'breeds' (and their crosses) should not be referred to as pit bulls as a group. They are all closely related, have inextricable heritage, and have been commonly referred to as pit bulls longer than APBT was defined. I would only refrain from using 'pit bull' if I intended to target a distinct breed name, which I normally would not do since there is no reliable and objective distinction between these so-called 'breeds'.

The earlier comment is correct, I would say, that the article suffers by only using images of APBT's. Using an image of another breed in addition would clarify that "Pit Bull" refers not to a specific breed but to a group. My preference would be to replace the second image on the page with the top image from the Bull Terrier page: [[1]] because the profile makes it clear that it is a different breed. An appropriate caption would be "An English Bull Terrier, another breed often termed 'pit bull.' "CouldOughta (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, though I think a Bull Terrier is less likely to be called a "pit bull" than say a Cane Corso, a Dogo Argentino, or a Staffordshire Bull Terrier. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I checked out the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. It has a distinctive look, so I used it. CouldOughta (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Makes for a nice comparison. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Article looks great

I want to compliment how this article has evolved. It looks very professionally edited and under good monitoring. It could use a photo someday of a pit bull in attack mode, however, if one can be found. To any editors who might think that multiple references are excessive (I contributed to that section), I want to head off any problems by alerting editors to the following:

How many other breed articles have photos of the dogs in 'attack mode'? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to have one on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.56.8 (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sectioning and subsectioning

I think someone needs to look at how the sections are organised.

There is a section on US legal issues which contains a subsection on specific breeds which mainly talks about the UK which then has sub-sub-sections that are US related. Life will be easier for non-US readers if the non-US stuff doesn't appear to be under a US section.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A Good Link?

Do you think this link should be added?

[[2]]

It contains a list of cities within the United States which have Pit bull bans.

Such a list would certainly be useful to American readers, whilst too detailed for the main article itself. However, the site is clearly partisan and it's not obvious how the information was researched. It might qualify as a blog and therefore as undesirable, but I see it claims to have won an award. WHy don't you have a look at WP:LINKS for the officil guideline? I certainly wouldn't pull the reference if you decide it is within this guideline.

Also the reference is to breed specific legislation not to pit-bull banning legislation. --Peter cohen (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

locking jaws

>> There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any kind of 'locking mechanism' unique to the structure of the jaw and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier.}}

This may be true but citing an "expert witness" in a court case is not a very good reference. Whoever said this was being paid to say it. This needs a proper reference or it should be removed. You would think that there has been some research done on this.Bob98133 (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a better reference for this one I think. All the people on both sides of this POV battleground are doing a lot of damage to the good parts of this article. If you want to dig through really old versions you should find the better reference. Gigs (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A Horrible, Rotten, Foul Article That's a Waste of Bandwidth

There was a news story on my local ABC affiliate reporting a "pit bull" attack. I was curious as to what a "pit bull" actually was, so I decided that I would look it up on Wikipedia. I still don't know what a pit bull is, as my search revealed one of the worst articles I have ever seen on this website.

A 'pit bull' is nothing but a classification of breeds in today's world. The true Pit Bull is the American Pit Bull Terrier. The American Staffordshire Terrier is the 'show' strain of APBT. 76.89.24.7 (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User 76.89...,You have vandalised the Pit Bull and American Pit Bull Terrier articles at least a half dozen times today. If you're willing to improve the articles, with references, please do. If you don't understand how to do this, click the Help link to the left.Bob98133 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion for or against what apparently is not even a specific breed of dog, but it's apparent to me that this article is being used to debate that topic. In various parts of this article, contributors have quoted one source that states that "pit bulls" are responsible for 2/3 of all dog attacks in the USA, whilst another part of the article contradicts that statement.

There is also lengthy analysis of legal contests and court decisions about laws concerning breeds that borders more on being an archive instead of an encyclopedia entry. This information also did not help me to understand what a pit bull is, although it did finally convince me how "all over the place" the POV is in this article. As well, there is also an article on breed specific legislation, so I see no point as to why this information needs to be here, or why it comprises the majority of the article.

In fact, the entire article seems to be nothing more than a tug of war between two sides of an issue that probably needs to have it's own separate article or, surprise, should be merged with the article mentioned earlier. I'm going to assume the "B" assigned to this article was assigned a long time ago, as it is in serious need of clean-up from the mess the people who have been editing have made of it.

AntarcticFox (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is awful and could/should be thrown out completely and restarted. However, the history of this article discourages the conscientious wikipedia editor, with the good thrown out with the bad, and what is left is just a mangled mess. PBarak (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not recruit people from WP:DOG for a concerted improvment drive? I've been watching this page, Rottweiler and Dobermann each of which have their advocates of how cute and cuddly the breed is and how the violent ones were poorly brought up, but they tend not to cite evidence or, if they do, it is from partisan sites. I've been inserting fact and OR tags and reverting vandalism. What are needed are references to peer-reviewed vetinary or animal psychology journals and prefereably systematic reviews of the literature in such journals. Hopefully someone in WP:DOG will have access to such literature.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

pitbulls are very well behaved dogs it just all depeneds on who the owner is and how the dog is raised as to why they may have a temper problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.20.98.93 (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do people come to this article? Google: 8,250,000 for "pit bull", 1,260,000 for "American StaffordShire Terrier", 1,220,000 for "Staffordshire Bull Terrier." Pit bull is the term the media uses. Just like they use the unspecific "shark" when reporting a "shark attack" or "bear" in "bear attack" and so on. Any major attempt to revise this article will be met with an edit war most likely, considering the enormous amount of effort many have put into it. The Misconceptions section looks to me like it could be shortened. 5Q5 (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That said, it could be a good start to get statements about the dogs attributed to groups/activists/lawyers/experts. John Nevard (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)