Talk:Pit bull

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I'll see where this goes before sending it to my dog training buddies to shred through. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 23:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look promising.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
While there is a good amount of cuddly pet woo as well as MY DOG IS THE MOST BADASS DOG woo concerning Pit Bulls, they also are somewhat of a media scare, too. While they may be associated with the most fatalities or injuries or whatever, a vast number of people who choose to own pitbulls choose to own them as status symbols, and can encourage their aggressive behavior. Dogs adopted from shelters may have past histories that are unknown. I know several people who have had pit bulls since puppyhood, and have taken the time to give them the extensive needs and training the breed demands, and they have turned out fine, though my anecdote obviously doesn't change the statistics. However, what's unsaid is that a lot of other breeds have behavioral problems or special needs, too: dalmatians were massively overbred (some of it following the 101 dalmatians disney film!), leading to widespread temperament issues (no quality control) and cocker spaniels even have a whole syndrome that can cause them to freak out and attack their families for no reason. Just as one should not get a breed that demands wide open spaces and lots of exercise if one lives in an apartment, one should not buy a pit bull without full understanding of its special needs, experience required to handle it, and the ability to be dominant over a potentially aggressive dog. once again, this is not a BUT THEY ARE HARMLESS, THIS ARTICLE IS MEAN SO FAR complaint, just a perspective from someone who's handled animals, with a family friend who is a dog breeder on the line. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRjust shut up already 00:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I volunteer at the animal shelter and this article doesn't appear to be accurate. I've met a number of pit bulls and while they share the common traits of being highly energetic, strong, and having a love of chew toys, overall there is no reason to condemn pitbull breeds. True, they were originally bred centuries ago for dog fighting, but that hasn't been selected for in long time and besides, if you aren't raising them to fight odds are the same as with other dogs that they'll be violent (low).--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
This is an example of the woo/fallacious arguments that are out there: "Any dog can be violent". RachelSchmink (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, it doesn't look promising. Sentences like "tremendous cost to society" are on a par with "we have to protect the children" in terms of weaseldom. However the opening sentence is supported to some extent by wp:List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Fatalities_reported_in_2012. TLDR's comment about a media beatup are also valid. Let's see where this goes. VOXHUMANA 00:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of the article, I am also unimpressed with the arguments presented on this talk page, akin to all the standard "but I know a guy" stories. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes. As well as "but Chihuahuas can be violent too." We're already seeing that one. RachelSchmink (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Ironically, it's actually true. My vet won't treat any Chihuahuas without it being muzzled. Pit's depends on the pit.  ;-) Rat terriors are apparently also terrors. But so much of a breed's behavior is channeled by the individual training it. so it may be a "more violent" breed, but that doesn't mean it is or is not individually violent. Green mowse.pngGodotTut tut, looks like rain 00:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC) (edit con)
Sorry I am just not good enough for your standards or something. I guess I don't have enough experience to write the article on this topic, and I'm sorry for messing up this talk page. The article isn't totally inaccurate. There ARE people who use the 'they are just misunderstood!' tactic and the 'look I have a nice pit bull, they are all like this!' tactic, and they ARE a danger for attacks... but the statistics are also confabulated with the type of people who very often get pit bulls; as I said up there, a lot of them are purchased as status symbols, by owners looking for machismo and don't understand the particular needs (a very very clear hierarchy, a good breeder to begin with, early puppy discipline, a lot of love and affection and ESPECIALLY socialization) of the breed. While it may be obvious that a great dane doesn't belong in a small apartment, the pit bull's demands are not size and space but a highly skilled owner and that is much much harder to appraise than the dog/room size ratio. And even then, the dog's need still matter: they never 'go away' and an owner has to be able to deal with their dog's behavior (such as controlling any incidents it may cause, keeping it leashed, preventing accidents with good handling) even if it is trained well. There's also the issue of underground/disreputable breeding with pit bulls: many conscientious and open breeders will take the time to try and select for ease of temperament (which is important in breeding, actually) ... other breeders (some producing dogs for fight rings) do no such thing. It is difficult to know the full history of any given dog at an animal shelter, so a lot of pit bulls are actually put down, more than other dogs, because their origin and history is unknown and they could be vicious. Sad reality, yeah?

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────OK, I didn't even understand the above comment, but whatever. This article seems to have merit, and I'm sure we can bang something decent into shape. Empty statements like "a tremendous cost to society" aren't ideal because they are all emotion and no substance. On the other hand, empty statements that dismiss statistic gathering are equally unwelcome, as are those "I know a guy who..." anecdotes. If we're going to have this article, let's at least attempt to keep it, um, rational? VOXHUMANA 01:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Relevant question: 1) what data could help determine propensity for aggressive action 2) is there a reliable source for that data 3) what does the data say? Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) He confused you and our glorious sovereign Tmtoulouse--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The Proper Data[edit]

Part of the woo is extreme use of red herrings, and so I want to start this conversation about which data is important. I.e. it isn't just "propensity to aggression", and it isn't just bite statistics. The real issue is public health and safety, and so the actual important data is mostly likely something like "propensity to aggression" multiplied by "ability to cause severe injuries." By the way, I agree that my original opening para was too emotional. I'll edit. RachelSchmink (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but to me the claims that 1) pit bulls are far more prone to aggression and 2) pit bulls anatomical structure makes their bites cause worse injuries, are two very different things and a dissection and discussion would go in two very different ways. I would love to see a truly rational discussion emerge here as I have heard this argument vehemently from both sides all my life, and witnessed several family fights emerge because of it. So lets try and figure this one out right. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason to believe these dogs are physically or psychologically more dangerous than any others. There seem to be statistics about "attack count per breed" or whatever, but that really has nothing to do with the animals themselves, given that people think of and raise them as hostile (watch/guard/fighting/etc) dogs in the first place. "Propensity to aggression" kinda sounds like eugenics and racialism woo, and I've never seen a study of breeds' inherent combat abilities. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 02:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
"I see no reason to believe..." Ok, but are you open-minded to it being the case? You sound fairly decided; perhaps you're too emotionally committed to fairly judge. RachelSchmink (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm completely open-minded and rational, and have proved this about myself with science. Wanna talk about the article now? ~ Kupochama[1][2] 05:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, for sure, it's not a simple single dimension of data. And maybe that complexity (like usu. occurs in the natural world) is part of what keeps this topic confused and irrational. One thing, though: I created the article along the lines of RationalWiki's goal of exposing/debuking woo and pseudo-science. And so, I structured it along the lines of the pseudo-science and false historical reporting that's out there (pitbulls are like any other dog; there is no such breed; it's all how you raise them; they were America's "nanny dog"). I hadn't intended to write about the affirmative case, that the dogs are a public health risk, and that regulating them is rational. But if that makes sense for this site, then that's easy to do. RachelSchmink (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to jump into this, cause I don't know where I stand, but Kupochama, your statement is false on it's face. Dogs have been selectively breed for 2000-10,000 years. Aggression, ability to fight, single mindedness, etc., are all things you can (and humans did) breed for in dogs like bull terriers. In the last 100 years, as dog fighting became so violent and popular, more and more aggression was wanted from the pit bulls to the point where many were selected that were truly untameable, just so they would fight. They are necessarily more dangerous than some other dogs, because as a terrier they were breed to be mean, and as a pit bull, even if not directly from a fighting parent, fighting has been part of their recent breeding. There are reasons we say "pit bulls are not good family dogs" and "labs are great family dogs, but not good at something else". The trouble I think with this argument (like most) is that people take sides and when they do, they tend not to see that both sides are "extreme" positions. it is a *more* dangerous dog. that does not mean it *is* dangerous in any given condition.--Green mowse.pngGodotTut tut, looks like rain 04:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Now where did that "This article is under construction by Rachel Schmink" sign come from? I didn't add it. Is this sort of RationalWiki's page ownership system? One person has a whack at it, then another? RachelSchmink (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol, no. There's no page ownership system (except for essays). It's more of a gesture of acknowledgment that one editor is busy working away at something, so please try not to trip them up. Edit conflicts can be annoying. Also sometimes an editor has a clear overall picture of where an article is going (and one that may not be obvious to the rest of us). This template buys them some time to get their overall vision in place. VOXHUMANA 04:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I took it away. I don't think it's appropriate to use, unless a user wants to take it to his or her user space. Others here have had interesting points. It's not one person's page, and right now it's highly incomplete. @ Rachel, you might consider tossing it into user space if you don't plan to have it readable by tonite. That way we don't have lots of empty pages - but really it's your choice. Green mowse.pngGodotTut tut, looks like rain 05:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


Like i said, I don't know where I stand on pit bulls, but that screed that was written about "more deaths in the US than all others combined" is bullshit stats games. What years? all years? teh last year? one particular year? and how many deaths are we talking? 100 deaths each year? 1000? Try 8. out of a total of 13 in the last year. That is a statical anomaly. I have no idea if they are more dangerous or not, but for f's sake, if you are going to use scary numbers, at least cite to them and give real live examples. --Green mowse.pngGodotTut tut, looks like rain 05:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm in a ranting mood tonite. must be my job.  ;-) --- more people are killed by lightening each year than by ALL dog attacks, much less pit bulls (90 lightening per year, v. 35 MAX dog kills in last 10 years). At some point, maybe we need to reign in the "pit bulls" or dogs in general, are mass murdering slime that need to be euthanized before they kill us all. I think I just took a side. heh. (again, sorry to rant or vent - it's just my mood tonite.) --Green mowse.pngGodotTut tut, looks like rain 05:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
On that note, according to this, it's those damn horses which are killing people. Who will protect the children? VOXHUMANA 05:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Before writing here, I read the wiki guidelines; sources aren't required for every assertion, so won't don't you tone it down a notch? The current and last several years have seen the kind of stats I mention. This page has links to the raw data: RachelSchmink (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Rachel, relax :) Please don't take our general level of assholery as anything personal. As Godot noted, he's she's just in a ranting mood. We're not trying to be difficult, it's just that most of us genuinely are assholes. (Except for me, I'm a radiant shaft of light who brings happiness to children). VOXHUMANA 05:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm a girl, and I'm UBER nice. until you want to kill animals.  :-) And sadly, at least in Colorado, the pit story has turned into a euthanasia story. And now that I'm reading about it, it's far less necessary than the media would have you believing. One study cited by wiki suggests that the majority of those attacks that end up in hospitals are from trained fighting dogs that got out of control. Dogs encouraged to be even more aggressive than normal, and on a blood lust from teh fight. There's always two sides. :-) Green mowse.pngGodotTut tut, looks like rain 05:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh really? VOXHUMANA 05:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC) And yes I do know that I'm just being annoying now :-) Sorry for calling you a boy.
Hah! annoy away. I'm really almost never an asshole. a few people get on my nerves, and there are lots of subjects that I'm touchy about but it's all good. the thing that blows me away is 3d mobious. Some guy (marcus du sutoy) in a show about math was talking about it. Green mowse.pngGodotTut tut, looks like rain 06:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is the *sine qua non* of the fallacious arguments - "Extremely Unlikely event X kills more people than pit bulls every year". I could easy and so simply show you why this point makes no sense, but I really want to know that you're open to new data? RachelSchmink (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Just go and write your article :-) If your stats don't cut the mustard, then you'll be made aware soon enough. Until then, don't worry too much about what we say on the talk page. VOXHUMANA 05:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
What are you saying? The talk pages are sacred! Rachel must worry so much she cannot sleep!  ;-) (no rachel, you don't need to worry. there are real safety concerns about Pits, that need to be explored and discussed (like i didn't know pits didn't growl a warning, making them even more dangerous to kids).Green mowse.pngGodotTut tut, looks like rain 06:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
20 kills a year is not significant enough to make ANY claim about "which dog is more dangerous" or even that a particular breed is dangrous. It's enough to say "wow, 20 people got killed". 10 years ago, the Rottwiler killed 20 people and the pit only 6. I'm a highly skeptical thinker, which is why i find screeds that end up euthanizing dogs on the *chance* that they might be dangerous, based on TWENTY deaths in one year, to be an eggergous overreach of fear mongering. At some point it's critical to get off the "let's kill dogs cause they killed people" mantra, and look at what we are really talking about. "dog attacks" "dog attacks that hospitalized people" are vague, and frankly, unless you are offering comparative numbers to other aggressive dogs, it's a hollow list. How many pit bulls are there compared to say, dobermines or rottwilers? And if there are more of them, then that would account for the higher numbers. if there are less of them (less pits than dobermans, say) then it shows more of a valid argument. None of that is here except "pits are bad".Green mowse.pngGodotTut tut, looks like rain 05:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC) (edit con)
That is the first thing you learn in gathering statistics: small sample sizes mean high granularity and very different implications for probabilities. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is this page fairly slanted towards a single sided argument, using unscientific evidence. Case in point, the above link: . Reading it's footnotes, I find that it bases it's most bold claim on a notation to this site: , which we should immediately raise our skeptical eyebrows to. Why? This: It's obviously promoting an agenda to the point of fallacy. basically tears them apart for unscientific quote mining, false attribution, etc. Worth a read. My point is, this article is heavily slanted based on evidence that is easily challenged and looks to have been that way for a year or more. -Geekmasterflash — Unsigned, by: ‎Geekmasterflash / talk / contribs
Sure, but you are currently butchering the article into a crazy mess. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 15:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, I am pretty horrible at wiki formatting and etiquette, however I needed to inject some more science into the article as I feel that people looking for a Rational view of the dogs would be greeted with a very questionably sourced article indicating they were basically dangerous kill-bots. User:GeekMasterFlash

Section headers[edit]

I deleted all of the empty section headers. As a general practice, when you have content, then by all means create the header. It's undesirable to do it the other way around. VOXHUMANA 05:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. RachelSchmink (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Another thing you can do is comment them out. I find that useful cause it gives me a framework of where I'm trying to go, but non editors don't see it. --Green mowse.pngGodotTut tut, looks like rain 05:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Rewrote / Added some info[edit]

I did some rewriting. Done now. I don't take any particular interest or position here, so tear it apart or revert if you'd like.--ADtalkModerator 06:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I added some info and references, and as AD did, attempted to keep it pretty much neutral and just provided the facts and relevant laws, etc. Refugeetalk page 09:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we have this article for the right reasons. It doesn't seem to be analysing & refuting anything, & it's not clear what the message is (if any). If we're neutral on this issue, why are we covering it? It's also not linked from anything & I can't really think of any of our articles that should link to it, which is often a sign of going a bit outside RW's remit. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm... Does this article "belong" at RW? I dunno either. I just saw that this article had been started several days ago, and that someone was having difficulty writing it, and that others tried to revise it, so I did the same. As far as being neutral - it's kind of a "hot topic" and people seem to feel passionate about their point of view, so I tried to be careful not to enflame any passions, lol. If you think the article doesn't belong, or should have a particular angle, or whatever the concern is, please feel free to discuss here on the talk page, or start a poll or vote, or whatever. :p Refugeetalk page 09:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Right now it's not much. Someone (i.e. me) has to go look up the relevant research. The myth here is twofold, and we've only addressed one partly: a "pit bull" is a single discrete breed of dog (it's not, in any useful sense) and pit bulls are naturally dangerous. This latter is what needs to be researched and reported. There's pseudoscience afoot, Watson.--ADtalkModerator 11:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
What do you consider "relevant research"? Also, "the myth" of the Pitbull? I thought that I addressed the breed questions with the AKC info and link and the legal breed descriptors. All in all, I'm really sorry I tried to contribute to this article at all. Obviously people want what confirms their particular bias in the article. Oh, and thanks for cursing me out in an edit comment about the reflist too - will refrain from reply. But I can see how that was such a huge problem. Thanks to Ty for fixing it. Refugeetalk page 17:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Ugh. Maybe time to scrap this one entirely, now that people are making parody articles and so forth. I thought it was worth a try to find out some info, but apparently not. AD, have fun looking for studies that show pit bulls do not have powerful jaws or aggressive tendencies and are not responsible for many attacks. I spent hours researching with an open mind and couldn't find much positive. But you may be able to find what you are looking for. Time to delete this? Refugeetalk page 20:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I "cursed you out" ("Goddamnit Refugee" seems very mild to me) because of the thirty instances of bizarre capitalization I had to fix. But I apologize if it offended you.
I am not biased - as I said, I haven't done the research yet. Not sure why you're getting upset, though... I haven't done any more editing except to copyedit your contributions!--ADtalkModerator 20:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
(EC) hmmm.... I'm not "upset" other than I thought it was a bit strong to "yell" a me in an edit comment, but in your defense, I am overly sensitive (perhaps because I am female, but more likely it's just my personality) and of course it was annoying for you to have to copy edit my text - I am admittedly not much of a writer, and will keep that in mind, and limit my contributions here in the future. I was more upset, if it can be called that, that I spent time researching this to find out that it wasn't the "type" of research wanted/needed and wasn't well received, but, meh. So, I'm done here now. :-) Refugeetalk page 21:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm just one person - your opinion on the article is just as important as mine!--ADtalkModerator
I would support deletion, though I'm open to other suggestions if people have serious ideas about what direction to take the article in & the intention to follow it through. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, personally I think it's a clear case of myth-making at work: an indistinct category of dogs has been smeared on the basis of nebulous "instincts."--ADtalkModerator 21:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


Why was Labrador deleted?--Bonny (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't; it was redirected. Go discuss it on the relevant talk page, not this one. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear Gawd, it's Felidae MkII isn't it... Scarlet A.pngnarchist 12:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

single counterexample to the max[edit]

[1]--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


Anyone with more patience than me, read/listen to this and improve the article--"Shut up, Brx." 02:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting thinking.--ADtalkModerator 04:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This article hasn't moved forward & still suffers from all the flaws mentioned further up this page. As it stands, I don't see how it fits our missions, & don't see much point in keeping it in mainspace. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree and believe it should be kept, and over time it will continue to be improved. It is very much on-mission: there are claims of "science" about pit bulls and how they are "naturally" more aggressive, and those claims merit scrutiny.--ADtalkModerator
I'm skeptical of this being much improved over time. It's had no edits in over six months, after the brief attention it got in the first few days after being corrected, and still isn't linked from anywhere other than a see-also in our not-very-missiony dog article. It's also rather a niche subject. I could write a comparable article about ferrets, which are also the subject of various popular misconceptions, occasional media panics, & restrictive ownership laws in some jurisdiction. But I get the feeling it would probably be dismissed as irrelevant to site missions. I don't see this as being much different. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I've started making an article in my user space, but if just half of everything I've ever started were to be completed I'd have more to my name than a half-dozen pulp fiction writers on cocaine could muster in their combined lifetimes. --"Shut up, Brx." 02:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
What, this? How does that help us out here? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't. I just enjoy talking about myself But at least if this is deleted, there's another one in the pipelines.--"Shut up, Brx." 07:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's do a compare-and-contrast[edit]

In column a - - anonymous, blog. In column b - - 501(c)(3) with disclosed financials

Why are we letting some guys blog say, without evidence, that stats are bullshit? Hipocrite (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well for one, the blog links to a source that basically points out that the site in question,, quote mined an article that found the opposite of their claim: that the ban did not reduce the incidence of attack. I have now added that source directly to the article. -GMF
Also, being a registered non-profit doesn't give them immunity to skeptical inquiry and using that argument is the very definition of fallacious appeal to authority -GMF
Quote mining is easy to prove. Show me the quote, show me the source. Don't say "This fucking retard says it was quote mining." I don't trust "nopitbullbans." Hipocrite (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
And I don't trust your source, however the linked reference to the study (not to the blog) seems to undermine your argument, so stop removing it. -GMF
No. My source details methodology. You just assert "quote mining." You won't provide the quote, you won't provide the source. Why not? Hipocrite (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The site talks about the study in Canada of BSL where they invoke what they call "highlights":

Study highlights The combination of large molosser breeds, including pit bulls, rottweilers, presa canarios, cane corsos, mastiffs, dogo argentinos, fila brasieros, and their mixes:

   79% of attacks that induce bodily harm
   72% of attacks to children
   85% of attack to adults
   69% of attacks that result in fatalities
   77% that result in maiming

However, the methodology is flawed: It incorporates “press accounts" which, honestly do we need to discuss how inaccurate that is? The press is in no way qualified to make breed determinations, let alone are they a good source of full reporting (studies, linked in the article show that there is a heavy bias towards repeating Pit Bull attack stories.)

For more specfic, point by point rebuttals.

As for the, my intent is to show they are a heavily biased source that quote mines.

"On June 18,, a national dog bite victims’ group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks, released data of municipalities across the country, and one instance in Canada [meaning Toronto], that showed the successful results a municipality experiences after adopting a breed-specific pit bull law. The data was gathered over a two-year period when instances appeared in news alerts designed to capture U.S. media reported pit bull attacks."

Despite the fact that the opposite was true:

So please, if you are gonna remove the rebuttals, then I ask you remove the equally biased source. Geekmasterflash (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No. While I will mention that the study is based on press reports, that's a perfectly valid methodology. I STILL have seen not a single demonstration of a quote mine. SHOW ME A QUOTE. SHOW ME THE SOURCE. Why can't you do this thing? Actually, I know - because there's no fucking quote mining.
Uh, taking a press report and then extrapolating from it both dog type and wound severity is at least to my mind, quote mining as there is no verification done that the animal was in fact a Pit Bull nor that there was excessive sample bias, which studies indicate exist: Geekmasterflash (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Define quote mining. Review quote mining. Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, well then I agree my asseration of quote mining is flawed based on my my own misunderstanding. HOWEVER, if we are going to keep the study in the article I demand more attention paid to the very flawed methodology. It's quite obviously subject to sampling bias, proven by: AND to popular misidentification of the animal in question: . Honestly, most dogs labeled as a Pit (assuming you mean American Pit Bull Terrier or American Shepford Terrier) simply are not. Geekmasterflash (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
So you agree that there was NO QUOTE MINING, correct? You want to argue about things like people misidentify pit bulls, that's fine. You want to argue that the press sensationalizes pit bulls, fine. The study, however, is totally valid. Hipocrite (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The Toronto Humane Society was not QUOTED when said the ban was successful. They weren't even mentioned. The Toronto Humane Society is an advocacy organization that has taken a position. Hipocrite (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC) are also an advocacy organization, though one that takes the opposite position. In this case, they have a study that specifically refutes the claims made by DogsBite, so why do we treat DogsBite as the more reliable source especially given evidence of their relying on studies of dubious quality? Geekmasterflash (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
They do not have a study that does such. Since you may, apparently, know that words have meanings, please define the word "refute." You didn't know what "quote mining," was before, remember? Well, you don't know what "refute" means.Hipocrite (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Here's who they do quote The Toronto Sun. Seems pretty much full-context to me, no? Hipocrite (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Let's also be clear - the website is run by a retarded fuck who is also a census-conspiracy theorist - [2] - "But that’s why the American Community Survey, or ACS, while sounding like such a benign thing, is really an unconstitutional invasion of your privacy and why those operatives tasked with coercing you into compliance to take it are no better than the Gestapo." Totally trustworthy! Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC) , He is entitled to an opinion. However, you can not simply ignore valid points because the source is melodramatic. Granted, reading that makes me think he is insane, I mostly quoted his defense of Pitbulls due to proper sourcing of his claims in the linked article. Geekmasterflash (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Anyone who believes in ACS conspiracy theories, however, is a fucking mope. You are taking a mopes arguments as your own. Either you've done enough studying to confirm every one of the fucking mopes facts, or you're a fucking mope. Since you didn't know what quote mining is, and you don't know what "refute," is, I'm going mope. Hipocrite (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Revert warring[edit]

I've temporarily locked the page to stop this wheel-warring. Please discuss issues with the article & agree on changes rather than just rolling back. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Since the article is locked, here are the points I feel need to be made in this article. I hope we can agree they are reasonable and see to it they are included: : There is high correlation between vicious dog attacks and the general shittiness of the owners. : More of the same, but more publically accessable, plus this has solid refutation reference #13 (

Basically spelling out how what ref #13 states is incorrect, almost entirely.

Quote: "The CDC has published a statement that the single-vector approach in "Breeds of Dogs" 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."

Reference #12 ( is also dismantled: "An often-asked question is what breed or breeds of dogs are most dangerous? This inquiry can be prompted by a serious injury inflicted by a specific dog, or it may be the result of media-driven portrayals of a specific breed as dangerous. This ignores the true scope of the problem and will not result in a responsible approach to protecting a communities citizens." ref -

There was no mention before my edits of the hype and pseudoscience surrounding Pit Bulls, such as the crazy belief they have locking jaws, or they have the most bite force of any dog. ( (

There is a clear history of public panics over "dangerous" dog breeds since the 1800's. Including hounddogs at one point. ( Any article that plans to objectively look at the issue of Pit Bulls should mention this is not a new phenomena and quite likely is an example of the same hysteria.

We need to keep in mind that any study that includes press releases as part of the methodology is inherently flawed due to sample bias. ( Furthermore, press releases are highly suspect sources because even trained professionals misidentify an animal as a Pit Bull up to 87% of the time. (

I am still going to be adamant about not using as a source due to statements such as this: "Even if the pit bull category was split three ways, attacks by pit bulls and their closest relatives would still outnumber attacks by any other breed. Pit bulls are noteworthy for attacking adults almost as frequently as children, a characteristic not shared by any other breed. If a pit bull or rottweiler has a bad moment, instead of being bitten, often someone is maimed or killed; that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk." How exactly is an off the chart statistical risk possible to determine from such a tiny, tiny sample size? About 35-40 serious dog attacks a year. This is not science and can not be construed as anything but obvious hyperbole, and yet it's thrown in there without a second look. Furthermore, splitting "Pit Bulls" into separate categories then ignoring that separation" "attacks by pit bulls *AND* their closest relatives..." thus not actually separating them into different breeds since they still count them together for the purpose of statistics vs other breeds, belies a pretty obvious bias and attempt to skew statistical analysis to their view instead of what the data would represent if they counted each breed truly separately.

And in case anyone wants to check, here is the relevant data from their study:

Breed Attacks doing Child Adult Deaths Maimings %/dogs Notes bodily harm victims victims Pit bulls & close pit mixes: 2394 971 850 245 1353 4.4% 61% 52% 69% 47% 60%

Counted at one data point against all breds instead of each counted seperately against each other and all breeds, which skews the results.

Furthermore, this study is subject to sampling bias: "Compiled by the editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE from press accounts since 1982." I challenge anyone to look at this study:

Have you ever seen such a poorly sourced study? No reference is given to where the data points have been pulled from. Not a single source used besides news reports, and oddly devoid of footnotes for something attempting to pass itself off as statistical or scientific. NOT PEER REVIEWED.

Also, dogs typically labeled Pit Bulls display a higher than average docility: Geekmasterflash (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Where did you find ? Did you read it? Hipocrite (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I found it linked on this article, appears to be dead however in my rebuttal I can see why it was linked before. It was attempted to be used to say the AVMA supported breed bans, while my above refutation points out the AVMA specifically makes the case against it. Note that it is reference 12, here is the quote from the article: "An early AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) [11] study titled "Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998" [12] found that "Pitt Bull type and Rottweiler dogs were responsible for more than half the deaths reported from dog attacks", and that "fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem", yet at that time they did not advocate "breed-specific" regulations. " My refutation is based on the AVMA stating this is a faulty way to look at the data.Geekmasterflash (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
You said "Reference #12 ( is also dismantled." Did you read reference 12? I think not! Hipocrite (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you are reading what I am saying, the author used a source to make a point the very source says is unsupported by the data. Why would we allow this? Geekmasterflash (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Have you, or have you not, read reference 12? A simple "yes" or "no" will work fine. Hipocrite (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes I have, but the link provided is dead. Sacks, J. J., L. Sinclair, J. Gilchrist, G. C. Golab, and R. Lockwood. 2000. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 – 1998. JAVMA 217 (6): 836 – 840, here is a working link: or in which the very first paragraph tell you why you shouldn't assume Pits are violent, because they straight up admit to sample bias: "If you consider only the much smaller number of cases that resulted in very severe injuries or fatalities,17,19 pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified. However this may relate to the popularity of the breed in the victim's community, reporting biases and the dog's treatment by its owner (e.g., use as fighting dogs17). It is worth noting that fatal dog attacks in some areas of Canada are attributed mainly to sled dogs and Siberian Huskies,43 presumably due to the regional prevalence of these breeds. See Table 1 for a summary of breed data related to bite injuries." Geekmasterflash (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, sure, now you have, but when you said "Reference #12 ( is also dismantled," you hadn't, right? Why is it ok for you to keep making things up? Hipocrite (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Reference 12 is a dead link, and the statement it makes is refuted by the very study they quote. The study states that Pit bulls are the most common for attacks because they are one of the most common types of dogs in the USA. The quote on the page brushes this off without raising the fact the study puts the terms in black and white, and yes I read it before now, I read it when I listed it. Do not accuse me of making things up. When I was wrong, I admitted it as you can clearly see above when I misunderstood the term "Quote Mining." Now, back to the point at hand: the article is at odds with the source, and that is not something I am making up and is in fact what I said the first time if not in exact words then in clear meaning. Geekmasterflash (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
When you wrote "Reference #12 ( is also dismantled," had you, in fact, read "The Role of Breed in Dog Bite Risk and Prevention?" Let's ignore all arguments that you are now proven right or wrong about it's content. Hipocrite (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I just told you that I had, you infuriating troll. Geekmasterflash (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
And had you read "Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacksin the United States between 1979 and 1998?" When did you read that, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fairly shortly afterwards, is this line of questioning going somewhere? Geekmasterflash (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes - you make things up, or are being fed text from elsewhere. Either way, it takes a long time to read through the source documents to your advocacy bullshit to see what they actually say. Hipocrite (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Alright, at this point I am going to have to request you stop insulting me, please. I have read the documentation, and you are just trolling me at this point. Either make a valid argument against what is brought up or let the adults handle it. Geekmasterflash (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No. You are inappropriately incurious about your pet. You spout breeder propaganda at the drop of a hat, and you claim sources that you haven't read were refuted by other sources - that you also haven't read. You write poorly thought out screeds about the lack of qualification of one individual, but ignore lack of qualifications by other individuals. You are, in a word, a purely biased advocate who came here with an already determined position. Hipocrite (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't own a dog, and I am quoting actual veterinarians and scientists. You are defending an obviously flawed study and removing valid statements on the subject from the CDC and AVMA. You are in a word, a troll and not at all interested in working with me in good faith. Geekmasterflash (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Still fucking further, you write the following paragraph
The above study is intensely flawed in both methodology and appropriate warning. Firstly, the study is not performed by either a scientist or a statistician, instead it is compiled by an editor of Animal People Magazine named Merritt Clifton. Clifton claims no such expertise.<ref></ref> The study was performed using only news media reports, which make it subject to massive sample bias. <ref></ref> Other, more scientifically and statistically significant studies that have used the same method warn against drawing the conclusion that Pit bulls are more dangerous based on the noted existence of sample bias. <ref>Delise, Karen. [], Quoting the CDC and AVMA</ref> <ref>AMVA [], Breeds Implicated in Serious Bite Injuries</ref> <ref></ref> Furthermore, no follow up was done to confirm that any of the news stories were properly identified as pit bulls, and given the noted difficulty of identifying a breed based on sight <ref></ref> one should consider any such report dubious at best.
Which I had already summarized above as "Advocates for pit bull ownership allege the Dogbite study is flawed; because study sampled news media reports it is subject to sample bias. <ref></ref>," but you don't even remove the summary. It's like you're oblivious to trying to make the article reflect whatever the studies show, and you just want your text, so I've locked the article until such time as we can reach consensus on the language. I'll respond to any reasonable proposal that you've written yourself and read all the sources to below. Hipocrite (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, because your summary of the points I have made cuts out the actual SCIENCE REFERENCES to the point I made, and leaves it at "some people say..." instead of allowing it to be shown what Governmental Organizations, NGOS, and other valid authoritative sources have to say, all for the benefit of a study that isn't scientific that colors the article one way... in a way that is specifically warned against in the references you removed. Geekmasterflash (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I would like a response to this point, please. I don't mind you rewording what I said, but removing language from the CDC and the AVMA to color a flawed study by a magazine editor with no statistical or scientific background... You can accuse me of bias, but that action should make it clear to any observer which of us has the problem. I will place the references back as soon as I can, and this will probably have to end in arbitration. So please, lets get you on the record as to why you removed them? It contained information that the author of the study has no credentials, established a rebuttal from a government organization (CDC) as well as an NGO (AVMA), and included an abstraction that supported the existence of media bias. All of which you removed and turned into a summary that contains none of the weight these references contain. Geekmasterflash (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
You can PROMPTLY go fuck yourself. Really. I dislike you immensely. Go back to your handler and tell them you did your job. Please donate half of the SEO money you got to this site. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
PS: Arbrtration? Are you kidding me? Go fuck yourself. Hipocrite (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
You can dislike me as much as you like, but you haven't refuted what I said nor have you explained why you are favoring an unscientific study with demonstrable flaws over more solid work? I assume the site has some means of the community stepping in to review disagreements? Generally that would be called arbitration. I am pretty new here, I will admit but I'd think this wouldn't be the first time there was a disagreement like this. Now back to my points please, why are you removing and ignoring bodies of work that are counter to your stance? If you find flaw with those studies by all means, explain them. Otherwise, you're just trolling. Geekmasterflash (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Will you donate half your SEO income from getting links to dogsbite removed to Rationalwiki if I remove every link to dogsbite right now? Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't run any website, nor am I employed for SEO. I am just a guy who works tech support and reads RW during down time. If you remove every link to dogsbite, I will certainly be happy, but I am not looking to censor anything. If someone wants to cite the report, that's fine. How anyone can read it and think it's solid work is beyond me and so I will of course point out it's flaws if it has them. Geekmasterflash (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I know you are lying. Give half of your income from this SEO job to rationalwiki right now, you fuck. Hipocrite (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Stop making unfounded accusations & generally being such an asshole. None of this is bringing us any closer to productive article content. Obviously, you two aren't going to agree on how dangerous these dogs are or what the studies show, so maybe you could work on including both sides of the argument in the article, together with relevant studies & possible flaws in their metyhodology. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
While I agree that he and I can not agree, I think it should be said I am not the one removing properly cited facts nor being a raging lunatic with personal attacks. Honestly, I think the dogs are more dangerous than others, but I also want there to be some more reputable science in this article. Geekmasterflash (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, you're the one making things up out of whole cloth, pretending you debunked dead links, including links to every single advocacy site in the world that agrees with you, trashing every single advocacy site that disagrees with you based on the say so of the earlier advocacy site - yeah, you're focused on the science, asshole. Totally focused on it. Hipocrite (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Prove it? The CDC is not an advocacy group, nor is the AVMA. The only advocacy group I have referenced so far was the Humane Society, to which you blew a gasket over above. The "dead link" is to a study that I proved a working link for, and that very study refutes the claim as written in the article. Now, if you wanna substantiate A SINGLE ONE OF YOUR ABOVE CLAIMS, please do so. Otherwise, this is just ridiculous. Geekmasterflash (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
FYI, the AVMA is somewhat of an advocacy group in this context. They make strategic decisions so as to further the interest of veterinarians and are also somewhat biased towards animals in general. They have no general allegiance to the premises involved in human safety advocacy, which is what much of this debate centers around. Also, they make a fair penny off sewing up dogs that have been ripped apart by pit bulls. The AVMA also does not come out forcefully against puppy mills and factory farming because vets make bank of these practices. Also, the National Canine Research Council (NCRC) is definitely an advocacy group. They have a clever name that makes people think they are a government research organization or an esteemed scholarly group, but they are not. Lastly, many of the so-called experts on dog bites and aggression are dog trainers and dog behaviorists (a terms that anyone can adopt). First, their role should shrink in the context of a conversation related to human safety, as their biases going on should be clear. Second, they are not often the smartest among us. Third, they have several incentives (ideological and monetary) to fall on the nurture side of the nature/nurture discussion.

Whole cloth - Quote mining. Dead links - at least you finally admit that. Advocacy sites: [3] -,, [4] - Too Easy. Now, are you going to fuck off already? Hipocrite (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Anyone with a 3rd grade reading comprehension level is welcome to scroll up to where I freely admitted I made a mistake both with the usage of Quote Mining, and the site As for, did you have some sort of rebuttal for their findings? Same with, do you have have a specific rebuttal? Because DogsBite, I was able to demonstrate serious flaws with the study presented. If you want there to be no advocacy groups linked in this article, that is fine with me, I will not reference any more. However, you could have found out my willingness to do so with a civil conversation. Geekmasterflash (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not playing fucktard gallop with you any more. You said "Now, if you wanna substantiate A SINGLE ONE OF YOUR ABOVE CLAIMS, please do so." I did so, so you changed what you wanted me to do from substantiating my substantiated claims to making some other claim. I'm not wasting any more time on your bullshit asks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Never did well in debate club, I see? You made a claim to substantiate what you said, I rebutted them. This may happen a few times before we either come to an some semblance of agreement. I had made mistakes, I can admit that, so I am asking what is your issue currently, and what actual arguments do you have? What is your support for those arguments? Etc, etc. Geekmasterflash (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll use the formal term for what you're doing - spreading. Every time I refute your points, you just move on to something else, because you are full of shit. I have no strong concerns with the current article, so if you have any more white-washing you want done, go ahead and propose it. Hipocrite (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not spreading, you brought up something I already acquiesced to, which I pointed out, then I asked you to expand on the points you made. Also, I have already layed out a general plan for my input, it's the giant wall of text above. Geekmasterflash (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So you admit that "you're the one making things up out of whole cloth, pretending you debunked dead links, including links to every single advocacy site in the world that agrees with you, trashing every single advocacy site that disagrees with you based on the say so of the earlier advocacy site," correct? Now you want me to debunk the advocacy sites on your side, or you'll put them back in the article, even though the advocacy sites supporting breed specific laws are not currently in the article? Is that your position? I'm glad you admit to using giant walls of text. Stop. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sir, you are impossible. I acquiesced to the fact that nopitbullbans was improper, and my understanding and use of the term quote mining was incorrect, and thus inappropriate to use as I did. I did not, and do not agree to making anything up whole cloth... IN FACT, everything you've removed has been sourced. The giant wall above was in direct response to the sysop telling us to come to agreement. I wanted to make clear what I wanted included in the article. I am asking you to specifically state why you removed something, debunk findings, or otherwise make some semblance of working with me in good faith. Geekmasterflash (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Staffordshire Bull Terrier[edit]

I must make a defence of the staffy. I have never come across a nasty one in my life. My own staff is 12 now and I have never had any real concerns with him around children. The one concern I do have (or did when he was younger) is his pure strength so I would not leave him with very young children who could be hurt by being knocked down during play, with any kid aged 4/5 or above he would not be a problem at all. This goes for just about every dog of this breed I have come across, of course there are dog equivalents of "arseholes" in every bread, my dad's border collie is a horrible dog for instance, and they have a reputation for being anything but.--Mercian (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

One needs to consider media bias as a mass hysteria driving force, as well as social aspects[edit]

Per multiple sources, the original pit bull terrier was bred from bull baiting dogs into a fighting dog. This was largely in rural environments, where, the family dog also was a fighting dog. Said fighting dog would then be nursed back to health by the family, the "history" says (and considering the history of the regions involved, it's likely) that the wife an children did the nursing of the dog, broken bones and all. This resulted in *any* form of aggression towards humans, for any cause, resulted in the culling of that dog and its get. That said, this is today. Where one can find a fine example of that ancient breeding or find a backyard breeder, who cares nothing for temperament. The latter is largely true in the inner cities, where viciousness is valued over familial associations of the breed. Hence, we have today's mixed bag of "pit bull",that is variably eating people (OK, not eating, but crushing and piercing) and the dogs I know better. One of whom, I stepped upon her crossed forelegs and was initially greeted with an exploratory bite, when recognizing skin, rather than fur, was greeted with "vicious" licking. Something I discovered when flipping the light switch, as I usually didn't turn on the light to take the midnight piss. Stepped upon another pit bull, same result. Met a bunch of others, with highly variable results. The variability seems to be, based upon my preliminary exploration, based upon how the animal was bred. So, it's mixed baggage. Meanwhile, I remember all too well the German Shepard scare, the Rottweiler scare, the pull my finger scare. The only *real* threat is pulling my finger. Something actually known even in the most, erm, rural areas of Afghanistan. What does that say of our species, where *that* is the common joke? The simple reality of it is, a dog *will* bite, when met with sufficient cause. I'm honestly surprised at the low number of dog bits, compared to the number of assholes contained in humanity.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Decent enough entry, but HIGHLY prejudiced opening... and in fact wrong[edit]

Presenting both sides of the pit bull debate is fine. But the implications here are not simply false - they are the very opposite of the truth: "They were bred largely for fighting purposes and thus tend to have a highly aggressive attitude that can make them a serious danger, especially to children." This implies that they are, by nature, a serious threat to HUMANS. In fact they were bred initially to NOT attack humans: a fighting dog that was human-aggressive was a real problem for the dog men. So, they were selectively bred to be aggressive towards OTHER DOGS, and to be safe around handlers. This characteristic - animal aggression - is associated with terriers in general. You can find all sorts of respectable sources for this: Malcolm Gladwell, Bronwen Dickey, etc. Have they attacked children? Of course. But the statistics don't suggest that they do so more than any other breed: most of these statistics do not take population into account, and there happen to be a huge number of pit bulls these days. When Dobermans were the most prevalent "dangerous" dog, the sheer numbers tended their way; same with German Shepherds, etc. Modifying the second sentence accordingly. I may get around to some of the other questionable assertions later. — Unsigned, by: SillyRabbit / talk / contribs 19:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Well statistics actually do show that they attack more often and are responsible for more serious injuries and death than other breeds. A few recent examples below:

"Vicious Christmas Eve pit bull attack leaves Kentucky woman dead, husband injured"


"An Oklahoma woman and her dog were killed by two pit bulls Thursday, according to police. The woman was walking her small dog just before 2pm Thursday in the 8100 block of Willow Creek Boulevard in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, when they were attacked."


"Virginia Woman Mauled to Death By Her Two Dogs While Walking Them in Woods."

There are a lot of reports of people killed by their own pit bull dogs. At some point you are going to have to take your own emotion and bias out of this issue and look at the cold hard facts. There is no other breed of dog who has such an extensive record of attacking people, including their owners, with resulting fatal injuries. I'm not saying other dogs don't attack; they do, just not in the unexpected and irrational way pits do, nor am I saying that other breeds don't cause injuries; they do, just not the degree of vicious mauling without reason that pits do. Study the data, then make decisions and present accurate data based on facts. "Rational" Wiki, right? Refugeetalk page 08:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Yer evidence is highly anecdoctal. Simply showing three instances do not support yer argument. The main problem with yer argument is that it implies that pit bulls are the only that mauls. Without reason. Ya seem to think that pit bulls are nothin' but killin' machines. I do not belive ya and I find yer argument invalid. Can ya tell me why ya think they are dat and try to use another argument, if ya get my point?--Deli-delibirda! (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)