Talk:Pit bull/Archive 3

message: I beleive some of the history to be a bit in accurate as to what "composes" a true pit bull.  It is clear that the contents of this article are clearly one sided.  It is as if the "scientific" evidence provided was selected from pro pit bull publications.  The actual stats show something much different.  There is also a long laundry list of psycological evidence showing not just the instability of these dogs, but the instability of the people that choose to own them if you care to look it up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.39.193 (talk • contribs) 
: So you're saying that Cesar Millan is "unstable"? Interesting. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't breed things for targeted aggression (unless you've mastered and elevated the science of bio-engineering). Its very unlikely that you could breed something to attack its own kind but submit to another species. In fact everything I've read about dog domestication links it to pack mentality the owner replaces the pack (or the pack leader at any rate); So how can you have a creature accept an alien as its pack leader but but retain aggressiveness towards its own species? Eno-Etile 01:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Who are you Mr. BoldText? That must make mating very difficult as well as raising litters... In fact I don't believe it show me proof. Eno-Etile 06:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree "VERY Poorly Written"

message: Aside from the fact that this article is biased, it is very poorly written.  Can we get some adult supervision here?
: Saying that an article is "poorly written" isn't very helpful. Can you give examples? Feel free to improve the article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VERY Poorly Written!

message: I work with animals. I have a lot of experience with bulls.  I changed the intro to a very mild section on pit bulls as pets.  It needs to be worked on, but it's a start.  There are few statisitics avalible, so I simply put what I could.  Please find sources, we need to find sources to show the fact that bulls are common owner surrenders and commonly euthanized.
ReignMan 16:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: - i.e. American Pit Bull Terrier, for which, I think, there is a separate Wikipedia article - and that other breeds of dog, owing to similarity of appearance, may also come under the general heading of "pit bull", although this is not necessarily correct, as these breeds are seen as distinct [e.g. Staffordshire terrier, by both UK and American Kennel Clubs]. The word "rubric" is neither easily understood by the general public nor appropriately used in this context, which is why I suggest the use of a phrase such as "general heading". Vandenwyngaerde 23:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that Presa Canarios and Dogo Arentine dogs are not American Pit Bull Terriers, but this article is about the word Pit Bull, which does not describe a single breed of dog, and is not applied consistently; i.e., some folks would say that the term should only refer to ABPTs and staffordshires, but many state laws are written up such that the term includes a wider selection of breeds; I included an example link demonstrating that.  I don't understand how "molosser" is "controversial and confusing." You'll have to provided evidence that it's either. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: While I agree that pit bulls get negative press and wholly support education on the positive aspects of this breed, I don't think that this article is unbiased enough to be quoted as "fact" to those doing research to benefit pit bull owners.  The article appears to spend too much time pointing out the debate and the positive aspects, that encyclopedia based facts are lacking.
A proper history, that includes the true negative nature of the dog's breeding, statistics on temperment v/s other dogs, bite/fatality statistics (available from the CDC), and only external links to the debate would help clean up this article and provide a more neutral point of view.  Possibly even creating a second article devoted to the legislative ban of dog breeds would help. Reducing the information provided may also be the answer, because the simpler the statement, the closer it is to the truth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.148.134 (talk) 
::Breed specific bite statistics have been hard to locate.  Fatality statistics breed-specific are available and cited, but bite has been difficult. Gigs 15:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think by saying to include the negative nature of the dog's breeding and pointing out all the faults, you are in essence pointing out that ALL pit bulls were bred for fighting and that ALL pit bulls are nasty with other dogs. I think that your statement is truly what lacks neutrality, and by saying that we should reduce information, what you're really saying is "I hate pit bulls, delete this article." Come on now. Grow it up a little. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.150.200.99 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: this article is not anywhere close to neutral. there's a fallacy of the "golden mean" at play here.  the idea that both point of views represented means it's neutral.  that's not true.  by that logic a balanced article about the holocaust would include the argument that the jews needed to die to purify europe.  that's an extreme example of course.  but look at the point i'm making.  i'm going to look at this article over the next few weeks and try to bring it around.
Youdontsmellbad 08:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  a balanced article about the holocaust has to include the fact that a significant proportion of the population acceded to the belief that the jews needed to die (for what ever reason, I'm not a historian). Similarly a balanced article on pit bulls has to recognise that the aggressive trait has been amplified by breeding and that the breed exists to produce aggressive dogs, not all dogs will be as aggressive (I imagine) but it appears to be pathological. The article notes that it seems "irresponsible" owners choose pitbulls - but they're not chosen because they're cuddly and obedient; they're chosen because they are aggressive and strong. 91.108.165.70 13:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This whole article reads like it has been written by an agrieved pit bull owner who spends his whole life trying to tell people that pit bulls aren't bad. Anything remotely negative seems to get deleted or watered down by describing it as 'debate'. 90.192.7.27 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, this is one of the most slanted Wikipedia articles I've ever read. WillNL 12:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality/NPOV issues

message: I took a first pass at cleaning up the article. While I can't say I'm 100% neutral in this debate as an owner of a bully-breed mix, much of the text of this article sounded like a sermon. While I agree with most of the sentiment expressed in the "editorializing," much of it is uncited (and some of it dubious). There are plenty of good pro-Pit bull sites in the link section if someone wishes to read about that side of the argument.
If you plan on adding anything positive (or negative) about pit bulls in the article, please make an effort to find a reliable source to back up the statement.  Google-searches for SPCA sites or study links are a good start.  OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup attempt

message: I would agree that the article, especially in original form, is biased.  However, authors should be careful not to assume that just because some people believe pit bulls are inherently aggressive that this article should avoid making a conclusion--properly supported--that they are not.
Also, to those who write biased articles like these, I would suggest to them that they wind up being less convincing than when writing neutral articles.  Readers know when they are being spun, and can become even more entrenched in their positions.  In my opinion, the facts about pit bulls tend to absolve the breed as a whole of guilt.   Relate those facts, and I think you might have a better chance of changing some ill-informed minds.
As for me, I should perhaps recuse myself as well, seeming as it does that I also have my mind made up.  However, I may make some edits, eventually--not least because I believe it is important for Wikipedia to have a robust, neutral article about pit bulls, especially at a time when national media seems to be honing in on pit violence related stories.  I feel confident I can do so neutrally, but I will not complain if someone beats me to the task.
:No, the article should not draw a conclusion, period.  It is obviously a controversial topic.  We should only present the data and the arguments.  Anything else would either be original research, or unencyclopedic.  Gigs 19:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General Comments

message: I am removing several paragraphs about a Kentucky court case. These paragraphs are strongly opinionated in favor of pit bull ownership, and are inappropriate for a neutral Wikipedia article. They would make a good opinion article, but they do violate Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. We can't write about "bad case law" or use opinion words such as "disturbing", "should not", "it is a fact that", etc. In addition, no sources are cited. Rhobite 01:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Kentucky court case 

message: At this point, these templates are next to useless for an article this evolved. If someone contests specific statements or needs sources, using the specific appropriate tags ,   and   aould be more productive. There are also     . Sections which are totally unsourced can be pulled intact to the talk page to be discussed or re-added later. Drive-by editors slapping templates on articles is not conducive to actual progress. Rather than raging against the wiki, why not contribute to the article? - WeniWidiWiki 15:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV template

message: To counter the often used incorrect statement that there is no proof that BSL bans work,
"Winnipeg became the first Canadian city to ban pit bulls in 1990, a year after an attack left a young girl badly disfigured. Since then, incidents involving pit bulls have fallen from about 25 a year to one or two."
Source:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/dogs/
Also, to disprove the claim that other dogs will fill the gap, from 
"We've seen positive results from similar bans in other jurisdictions. The most relevant and telling is the Canadian experience: 14 years ago, Winnipeg became the first Canadian city to ban pit bulls. Winnipeg was experiencing over 30 serious reported pit bull attacks a year; today, zero. Kitchener saw 18 pit bull attacks a year, and in a few short years since the ban came in, thanks to the leadership of their mayor and to Councillor Berry Vrbanovic, who is in the gallery today, they now have about one pit bull attack a year in Kitchener."
"This means that people in those cities who otherwise would be subject to the repeated attacks of pit bulls are instead spared serious injury, and the same goes for their pets. Even more interestingly, dog bites in Winnipeg went down over the course of the pit bull ban, refuting the hypothesis that pit bull owners will turn to other dangerous dogs. Similarly, in Kitchener, no other breed has filled the gap left by banned pit bulls." —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
:Could it be that reporting is somewhat skewed in post-BSL areas because people are less likely to assume an ambiguous breed is a "pit bull"?  Either way, it's not about proving or disproving anything, wikipedia doesn't do that.  We should only report the facts.  It looks like you may be able to get a citation of these Winnipeg BSL effects, but you'll have to do better than a google cached article that no longer exists.  Gigs 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BSL Info

message: There was a question on the CDC nonfatal numbers.  I added the citation. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5226a1.htm The 2% of the entire US population bitten per year may raise some question since it is not explicit in the article.  It is derived simply:  CDC estimates 368,000 people treated in Emergency departments each year.  The CDC estimates that 17% of bites are treated in a medical facility, with 38% of those treated seen in Emergency departments.  Some simple arithmatic gets you 5.7 million people bitten per year (estimated).  This is approximately 2% of the population of the United States.  I believe when I originally wrote that section I was looking at a different CDC article where they actually expanded this arithmatic themselves to come to a number close to 6 million per year, but this article should suffice as a citation.  Gigs 09:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CDC nonfatal citation 

message: I would like to see some citation for the allegation in the chart - namely that there are active bans in boros of New York City.  I have been unable to find any evidence of these bans, and indeed it appears NYS has a law preventing BSLs, which would make those bans impossible  - Lciaccio 21:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banned in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx???

message: What do you all think about semiprotection of this page?  It seems to attract a ton of vandalism, but on the other hand we have kept on top of it more or less.  Gigs 17:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: This article sucks. The writing is sub-par, its heavily slanted in favor of pitbulls, and its contradictory. In the Urban myths section it says,
"One of the most popular and baseless urban myths about pit bulls is that pit bulls often ‘turn’ on their owners without provocation. However, no sane dog performs behaviors for no reason. When aggression becomes a problem the reasons can often be traced to such things as improper handling, lack of socialization or training, a misreading of dog behavior by the owner, lack of discipline, or even disease. When an owner is startled by a sudden, aggressive outburst, it is generally because they have been unaware of problems that were brewing." Which indicates that the dogs are not paticularly aggressive when compared to other breeds. Yet under Insurance Problems it says "Pit bulls are also most responsible for the number of fatal dog attacks, when the breed had been identified [14]. The Pit Bull Terrier and Rottweiler in particular are often considered to contribute the most to the serious injuries caused by dog attacks and are the most common breeds that insurance companies will refuse to insure[citation needed]." Which gives a completely different picture. Pitbulls are generall considered very aggressive animals and this tenacity and gameness (to the extent that pitbulls typically show) that the article describes seems to infer a mental disability instead of preferable animal behavior.
Eno-Etile 04:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article 

message: If a search is done for "Pit Bulls" it redirects to a new Pit bull page. Seems to be a coding problem, not vandalsim, as near as I can see. Anyone familiar with redirect tag issues? Not my doing, I just discovered the problem. 5Q5 14:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect problem

message: I removed the section below because it has been flagged for awhile, has no references, and could be considered negative biographical information by some because of the controversial topic. Wiki policy at Wikipedia:Citing_sources says, quote: "attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor. ... All negative material about living persons must be sourced to a reliable source. Do not wait for another editor to request a source. If you find unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living person — whether in an article or on a talk page — remove it immediately!" I personally remember seeing a tabloid story possibly in late 2006 about a Hollywood actress (can't remember her name) who got rid of her pit bull and replaced it with a gentler dog, so the information below may not even be accurate as to being current. The section should be replaced in the article only with those items that are sourced.  5Q5 15:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced celebrity pit bull owners section removed

message: I have a 1 year old Pit named Jersey, and we've had her since she was a puppy and she's never shown ANY signs of aggression. People think they're horrible, vicuos killing machines, BUT THE'RE NOT!! Jersey has had 2 litters of puppies. The first litter is gone, but out of the second we have 2 named Ginger and Sassy. The don't show any signs that they want to hurt anyone and they're almost a year old. I know a guy over in Valley Head who has a Pit almost as tall as I am and he doesn't even think of hurting anyone. His head is bigger than mine and you can hold a peice of steak in your hand and he'll eat like a baby from your hand. Basically, I'm saying that Pits deserve a chance. If they do end up killing someone or another dog, it was because their owners MADE them that way! So, basically, what I'm asking is: What did Pits Ever Do To You? If you don't believe what I've told you about Jersey, come see for yourself:  168.216.84.36 15:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it wise to put your address on the internet? 82.163.74.81 18:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A properly-raised and genetically-sound Pit Bull should not ever be people-aggressive. They were never intended to be guard dogs; people aggression is nearly always a function of the owner not training/raising the dog properly (abuse, keeping tied to a stake all the time, etc).  Animal-aggressive, on the other hand, has been introduced into the gene pool.  Some pits, with plenty of socialization, will do well with some (or all) dogs in play situations into adulthood. Others will not; it depends on the genetics of the particular dog.  To say that no pit bulls have genetically-inherited dog aggression is like saying that Shetland Sheepdogs never have any genetic disposition to bark, circle, and nip at heels. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stop with the selective aggression defense it makes no sense Eno-Etile 23:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did Pits ever do to you?! 

message: Before even attempting to approach this subject, folks should consider a few things.
* Where do bite statistics come from? As in, expert analysis and DNA testing or "by gum officer, it wuz one a them pit bullys!"?
The CDC can collect "statistics" all day but if the underlying data is provided by uninformed, untrained "eye witnesses", it won't amount to a hill of beans.
* Hysteria really does happen.
Look up "satanic ritual abuse" even here on Wikipedia. I remember when that flap came to my town. People totally up in arms about something for which there hasn't been a single shred of evidence. Lives were ruined, millions spent in cases such as the McMartin pre-school circus trial, and there simply was no "there" there.
Far as dogs go, I'm old enough to remember when The Big Scary Bad Dog That'll Eat Your Children was the German Shepard. Same stories, different breed. Everybody had "statistics" and "he turned on me for no reason!" stories. Then, for a while, it was the Rottweiler. And for a while, the Doberman had his turn. Notice, however, it's never the big, fluffy, pretty dogs with the big brown eyes (despite the fact that Chows tend to be exceedingly temperamental and I'd never own one again myself... I'll take a pit over a Chow any day).
* Hysteria sells papers.
"There may be a killer in your home right now!"
"Details at 11."
Come on people, the boogeyman gets ratings and sells papers. Do you really expect to see (many) articles or TV news stories of...
"You probably shouldn't own a dog because you don't care enough to educate yourself on how to properly socialize and train a dog nor do you have the sense to realize dogs aren't stuffed animals."
Yeah our media could bother to do some real education but it's more profitable to scare people into hiking their skirts and running around shrieking in terror (for details, see the current US administration).
* Dogs don't get to testify in court.
As in do you really believe a dog owner is going to tell the police, "well, I was giving the dog his daily beating when, for no reason at all, he turned on me."? We have no way to verify the stories. I take all "the dog turned on me for no reason" stories with a grain of salt. At least until we have some way of getting the dog's side of the story.
* Temperament testing
As in here. The ATTS gives the American Pit Bull Terrier a rating of 84.1%. The Golden Retriever obtains 83.8%. So where are all the stories of Golden Retrievers unexpectedly "turning on" their owners? Or assaulting people left and right? Why aren't they being banned?
Because they're pretty?
The Cocker Spaniel obtains 81.7% but they're pretty too so they must not attack people. The Collie, 79.2%. In short, Lassie is more likely to attack you than a Pit.
* Sometimes the bias really is on the other side
I see a lot of hand waving here about the bias of the article but nobody stops to consider that "fair and balanced" can be taken to such an extreme that it entails destroying the truth. Sometimes, people really are full of horse droppings and to try to "balance" reality is to do harm. And "balance" with what? Urban legend? Yellow journalism? Self-reported "statistics" that nobody bothers to verify?
* Your neighbor is a bigger risk to you than his dog
Yes, I own pits. Both rescue dogs. One was abused by his first owner. And, frankly, I like my dogs better than I like most of you. My dogs don't get addicted to crack and try to break into someone's house unlike some neighbors I've had.
Dogs aren't that complicated nor that hard to socialize and train if you bother to realize that they are actual living beings and not something to compliment the drapes. My Pits are loyal, affectionate, well behaved dogs. Even the one that had to be rescued from an abusive owner. That one took actual effort (heaven forbid... work!) to socialize after being traumatized by his first owner. Today, he's the most affectionate, playful, well behaved dogs I've ever owned.
We don't have a "breed specific" problem, we have a human problem. As in stupid, small minded, ignorant people who want a dog as a toy or decoration. Such as my alcoholic, irresponsible, mooching off his mother, former neighbor that wanted a "tough dog" when he shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near a dog. Worse still, he has a kid. That'll turn out well.
He was a classic example of the kind of person that was going to show up in the news one day saying, "The dog turned on me for no reason." When the truth was, the dog would have had many, many good reasons.
* We owe them
Dogs. In general. We domesticated them. Blaming them for our stupidity, selfishness, and--frankly--often abusive behavior is immoral.
But I don't expect it to stop any time soon. Personal responsibility is out of fashion and we humans sure aren't going to give up the convenience of being able to blame an animal that can't testify in court and can't hire a lawyer. It's easier to exterminate the victims and bury our blunders isn't it?
At least the urban legend, hysteria nature of The Big Scary Dog That'll Eat Your Children, ensures that people will move on to some other breed next week. German Shepherds, Rottwielers, Dobermans... they've all had their turn. Today it's Pits. Tomorrow, who knows? But at least the hiked skirt crowd will move on and leave us Pit owners in peace for a while.
Mark K. Bilbo 03:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few thoughts 

message: I'm having trouble trying to figure out why this is even in the article.  It was apparently removed once already for a lack of sources and has since been put back with sources, but is still just as useless.  Besides the fact that fame is pretty subjective and wanes over time, the fact that celebrities own pit bulls means nothing. (19:55, 11 June 2007 144.246.4.21)
:It's of use to news media doing research on the pit bull controversy, and could be of use to students and others doing reports. There's two ways to look at celebrity ownership. On the one hand, the pit bull industry (much like the animal fur industry) feels its an endorsement of their side. On the other hand, the public can use the information to decide whether they should give or not give their fan support. If tens of millions of people dislike pit bulls around the world, then one wonders why an actress, like Jessica Biel or Jessica Alba, would risk losing that many fans just for the sake of increased security in their home by publicly acknowledging that they own a controversial breed of dog. Perhaps they are not fully aware of the controversy and have listed to security experts instead or pro-people at the adoption centers. Who knows. I'm the editor who took the list down once for it being unsourced. Somebody else sourced it and restored it. I don't have a problem with it staying now, but will also not lose any sleep if a formal vote is requested here for it's removal either. Like I said, though, it's useful to the news media. One could ask, however, couldn't there be a list of famous people who do not own pit bulls?! :) 5Q5 14:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:5Q5 that this list can be quite useful to the casual researcher.  The view of pit bulls as loving and loyal pets (rather than being just another type of security device) is emphasized when one looks through the sources now included in the list. This is useful in giving readers further perspective on the pit bull as a breed. Golemarch 23:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of "Famous people with Pit Bulls" 

message: This article has a "Positive press" section, but I note someone removed the section below, available the last time I edited the page on archive May 3, 2007, which offers the other side of the story. A "Positive press" section is obviously not neutral. It should be renamed "positive and negative press" or just "Media stories" possibly with positive and negative subsections. The section below used to appear in the article:
;Update: I'm working on the necessary reference template codes to insert many of these into the article in the press section. Some of these story links have expired. 5Q5 19:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Work completed. See new discussion section below: "Renamed "Positive press" section to "Media coverage." 5Q5 18:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where's the "Negative press" section?

message: I revised and renamed the "Positive press" section and added properly referenced negative news story material to make the section less pro-biased and more neutral, since the section only contained positive news stories. I am counting on other editors out there to help monitor the article to make sure these references are not removed. Here is the archive page where you can find the code to restore them if someone deletes them: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pit_Bull&oldid=138406289 This article has a "Neutrality disputed" banner on it. My intention with this recent edit is to help make it more neutral. Note that I left all the positive stories in place. You can find my references in the list because they are the ones that have the red access dates. Thanks! 5Q5 18:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Renamed "Positive press" section to "Media coverage"

message: I reorginized the BSL section and included an indepth report of the Colorado controversy over their pit bull ordinance.  The Denver case does a good job of outlining all of the major constitutional arguments raised by pit bull owners.  The court's opinion is unfavorable to them and I tried to include criticism and the respondent's position to balance it.  This shows how significant the Toledo Ohio ruling is.  I put in the relevant legal citation.
I also revised some of the language in the same section as POV.  The previous author ironically criticized the city of Toledo for appealing their lost case.  The case struck down the statute because it did not afford pit bull owners the right to their own appeal.Legis Nuntius 09:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BSL section update

message: I just reverted an addition to the Pit Bull page.  It was basically a two sentence diatribe on how there is nothing wrong with Pit Bulls.  It was sort of ironic to do this, as I agree completely.
This is what I deleted:
Which is ridiculous since it is not the breed of the dog that is the problem it is the owner. Any dog can be trained to not bite,it just takes time and effort which many lazy people aren't willing to put in, so they just kill the dog.
I'm a long time Pit Bull lover/owner/defender, etc....so I hated to delete it.
Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez 22:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello