Talk:Pit bull

	This Law related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes References need to be be cleaned up. Check to make sure everything is up to date. Probably needs expansion into some of the more common claims that are used to justify pitbull bans

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Let's do a compare-and-contrast

In column a - http://www.nopitbullbans.com/ - anonymous, blog. In column b - http://www.dogsbite.org/dogsbite-about.php - 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, dogsbite.org, 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 DogsBite.org talks about the study in Canada of BSL where they invoke what they call "highlights":

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-dog-attacks-and-maimings-merritt-clifton.php

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.)

http://www.nopitbullbans.com/debunking-merritt-clifton/

For more specfic, point by point rebuttals.

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

http://www.pr.com/press-release/243309

"On June 18, DogsBite.org, 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:

http://animallawcoalition.com/toronto-humane-society-survey-bsl-does-not-work/

So please, if you are gonna remove the nopitbullbans.com rebuttals, then I ask you remove the equally biased DogsBite.org 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: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/2008%20Media%20Bias_1.pdf 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: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/2008%20Media%20Bias_1.pdf AND to popular misidentification of the animal in question: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20183478 . 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 DogsBite.org 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)

DogsBite.org 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 nopitbullbans.com website is run by a retarded fuck who is also a census-conspiracy theorist - [1] - "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)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Style_over_substance_fallacy , 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

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. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks 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:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19302402 : There is high correlation between vicious dog attacks and the general shittiness of the owners.

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Delise%20Research%20&%20Investigation%20Methodology.pdf : More of the same, but more publically accessable, plus this has solid refutation reference #13 (http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf)

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 ( http://www.avma.org/avmacollections/canine_behavior/javma_217_6_836.pdf) 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 - http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Delise%20Research%20&%20Investigation%20Methodology.pdf

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. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2423399/) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull#Locking_jaws_myth)

There is a clear history of public panics over "dangerous" dog breeds since the 1800's. Including hounddogs at one point. (http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/publications/230603563_Pit%20Bull%20Placebo.pdf) 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. (http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/2008%20Media%20Bias_1.pdf) Furthermore, press releases are highly suspect sources because even trained professionals misidentify an animal as a Pit Bull up to 87% of the time. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20183478)

I am still going to be adamant about not using DogsBite.org 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: http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/dog-attack-deaths-maimings-merritt-clifton-2012.pdf

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: http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/ Geekmasterflash (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Where did you find http://www.avma.org/avmacollections/canine_behavior/javma_217_6_836.pdf ? 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 ( http://www.avma.org/avmacollections/canine_behavior/javma_217_6_836.pdf) 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: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10997153 or https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Backgrounders/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx?PF=1 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 ( http://www.avma.org/avmacollections/canine_behavior/javma_217_6_836.pdf) 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 ( http://www.avma.org/avmacollections/canine_behavior/javma_217_6_836.pdf) 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>http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/apHomeTeam.html</ref> The study was performed using only news media reports, which make it subject to massive sample bias. <ref>http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/2008%20Media%20Bias_1.pdf</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. [http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Delise%20Research%20&%20Investigation%20Methodology.pdf], Quoting the CDC and AVMA</ref> <ref>AMVA [http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Delise%20Research%20&%20Investigation%20Methodology.pdf], Breeds Implicated in Serious Bite Injuries</ref> <ref>http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/dog-bites/dogbite-factsheet.html</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>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20183478</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>http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/2008%20Media%20Bias_1.pdf</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. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks 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: [2] - nopitbullbans.com, animallawcoalition.com, [3] - nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com. 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 nopitbullbans.com. As for animallawcoalition.com, did you have some sort of rebuttal for their findings? Same with nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com, 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

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

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

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:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/bb29a16f-650f-30c6-9b8c-57b23c363e6b/ss_vicious-christmas-eve-pit.html

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

and

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4388220/Oklahoma-woman-mauled-death-two-pit-bulls.html

"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."

and

http://people.com/crime/virginia-woman-mauled-death-dogs-while-walking-woods/amp/

"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? Refugee^{talk 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)

Rebecca Watson video

Rebecca Watson released a video entitled "Study: Are Pit Bulls Genetically Predisposed to Violence?" According to the video, or what I remember of it anyway, the study in question relied mostly on self-reports from dog owners, which seems rather methodologically dubious to draw sweeping conclusions from. Watson is rather positive about the study regardless of its questionable methodology anyhow. Perhaps the person rewriting this article would be interested to cover the claims presented in this video? Carthage (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Ugh. No. That was definitely an "inverse stopped clock" moment. Watson describes "anti-pitbull activists" as "weird, obsessive, and have already made up their minds" after nailing her bias as a happy pit parent to the mast in the first minute. She accuses anti-pit activists of having an "overly simplistic understanding of genetics" and then immediately makes a jokey false equivalence about imaginary activists railing against horses for "kill[ing] Christopher Reeve once." Basically: horses have not been bred to throw their riders. That's an aberrant behaviour or an expression of an evolutionary instinct. Whereas pit bulls were selectively bred by humans for heightened aggression as fighting dogs. They were bred to resist normal dog instincts to avoid aggression when hurt or when their opponent shows signs of submission. Later in the video, Watson argues that this isn't relevant any more because 19th-century dog-fighting rings wanted human-friendly dogs to avoid attacks on spectators, and thus bad genes were culled from the pool by bitey pits receiving the "Old Yeller treatment." But in the 21st century no-kill shelters are the rule and pits are among the breeds least likely to be neutered. There is no counter-selective force against the two centuries of genetic engineering that programmed gameness into pits.

I won't comment on the validity of the study Watson analyses in the video at the moment. But her positivity ought to be viewed through the lens of her evident bias on this topic. And it's notable that she didn't mention a comparably large study from 2019 that produced contrasting findings. Basically: it found a strong genetic connection with "stranger aggression" and "dog aggression," with two pit bull-type breeds (American Staffordshire Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier) ranking high on both traits.

Watson also brings up the "nanny dog" thing uncritically. Even Pit Bulls for Dummies admits that's a myth invented circa 1980. Oh, and she uses "velvet hippo" unironically. She seems to be deep down this particular rabbit hole. Like, if I used this article as a platform for raging against "pit nutters" and "murder mutts," that would be a comparable level of bias to what she seemingly brought to this video. I'm not gonna pretend I haven't chosen a side here. But I'm at least willing to concede pro-pit folks have some points re: the "locking jaw" being a myth and appearance-based breed identifications being semi-unreliable. Watson doesn't seem willing to look at all the data that's out there. She admits to summarily blocking someone who confronted her about this on Twitter instead looking to see whether the chart they presented was bullshit (it's real). People can have very strong feelings where their pets are concerned and that can sometimes trip up even avowed skeptics. Burnt Toast (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

While I think the rest of those are valid, I do think you're kind of being unfair about Watson blocking that person on Twitter. She simply posted about fostering a new pit puppy. The person responding to her with data about pit bull injury statistics has definite troll vibes to me. Like, it just has the vibe of "wElL acKShUAlly" harassment that often gets sent Watson's way. It was an unwelcome response, so I feel that Watson isn't in the wrong here for blocking a troll, who just so happened to be trolling with accurate statistics. It's still trolling. Carthage (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't "trolling" by any meaningful standard. At no point did that person insult her. It's genuinely possible they were worried about the other dog in the picture and hoped to educate Watson about the potential risks of fostering a pit. Foster pits are frequently ones that have already shown concerning behaviour. In the era before "no-kill" shelters, aggressive dogs would've been euthanized after their first incident, but now many shelters will shuffle them through multiple homes instead. There are shelters full of nothing but pitbulls and some reportedly aren't above pressuring or outright lying to people (e.g. by re-branding dog-aggressive pits as "dog selective") to get them to adopt/foster a pit. So there's a good reason to give someone in Watson's position the benefit of the doubt and respond as if they might've been pressured or mislead. I understand that Watson didn't owe some random person an answer. But there's dozens if not hundreds of YouTube comments telling her exactly the same things. The video frankly has a "la la I can't hear you" vibe. It's confirmation bias in action and a blemish on an otherwise great career. Burnt Toast (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)