Talk:Pit bull/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 25 September 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

I'll see

I'll see where this goes before sending it to my dog training buddies to shred through. ^gnostic 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. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{just 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. VOX^HUMANA 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. GodotTut 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? VOX^HUMANA 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

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.--GodotTut 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. VOX^HUMANA 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. GodotTut tut, looks like rain 05:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Stats

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. --GodotTut 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.) --GodotTut 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? VOX^HUMANA 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: http://pitbullnation.net/about 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). VOX^HUMANA 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. :-) GodotTut tut, looks like rain 05:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? VOX^HUMANA 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. GodotTut 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. VOX^HUMANA 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).GodotTut 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".GodotTut 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. ListenerX^TalkerX 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: http://pitbullnation.net/about . Reading it's footnotes, I find that it bases it's most bold claim on a notation to this site: http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2011.php , which we should immediately raise our skeptical eyebrows to. Why? This: http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-myths.php It's obviously promoting an agenda to the point of fallacy. http://www.nopitbullbans.com/debunking-dogsbiteorg/ 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. ^{d 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

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. VOX^HUMANA 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. --GodotTut tut, looks like rain 05:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Rewrote / Added some info

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.--^talk 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. Refugee^{talk 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. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks 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 Refugee^{talk 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.--^talk 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. Refugee^{talk 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? Refugee^{talk 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!--^talk 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. :-) Refugee^{talk page} 21:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just one person - your opinion on the article is just as important as mine!--^talk

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. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks 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."--^talk 21:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Labrador

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. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Gawd, it's Felidae MkII isn't it... ^narchist 12:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

single counterexample to the max

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

citation

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.--^talk 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. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks 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.--^talk

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. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks 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? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks 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)