Talk:Pit bull/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Breed related risk

I'm trying to understand this edit [1] by NolanAlex (talk · contribs) (Welcome back, I see this was the first edit from this account in 12 years). The sentence from the article that's disputed is, Dog bite severity varies by the breed of dog, and studies have found that pit bull-type dogs have both the highest risk of biting and a tendency to produce the most severe injuries. The first source for that is Essig et al. which says, Injuries from Pitbull's (sic) and mixed breed dogs were both more frequent and more severe....The high risk breeds had both a high rate of biting and caused significant injury. and the second source is Taylor et al., that who wrote that The most known dog breeds that were involved in this study were pit bull and German shepherd breeds, which is consistent with the literature.19, 20, 21, 22 and those cites in Taylor represent four additional sources on the breed-related risk of pitbull ownership that can always be found and added to the article as well. Geogene (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

There are 2 components to the original wording "highest risk of biting" and "tendency to produce most severe injuries."

Only the first reference discusses severity. It reports the following (figure 2 and figure 3). A higher number indicates greater severity, as measured by tissue damagae. I don't think the linked references supports the original wording of "most severe" since there were other breeds that were reported as more severe on average in the reference.

Highest Severity

1. Mixed -- 4.2

2. Great Dane -- 4.0

3 (tie). St. Bernard 3.8

3 (tie). Pit Bull -- 3.8

The 1st study discusses rates of reported bites to face. It found that pitbulls had a higher rate of reported bites to head and neck that were severe enough to require emergency room treatment other breeds. The 2nd study doesn't discuss rate only total number. It found that ~10% of reported bites were by pitbulls or pit mixes, and the vast majority were unknown breed (presumably mixed). I don't think the original wording of "highest risk of biting" (in all situations) is a good representation of the first study finding of highest rate of bites to head that were severe enough to require emergency room treatment. There have been other studies that found other breeds had a higher rates of bites in general (not just emergency room bites to head). An example is https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159108001147 , which found that pitbulls had an average rate of reported attempted bites to humans compared to other breeds and a lower rate than numerous other breeds.

I believe my edited wording is a more accurate representation of the references. You quoted the references directly. An alternative would be to use a direct quotes from the references like this, rather than rewording. NolanAlex (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"The term [Pit bull] was first used in 1927"

There are many records of the use of this term well before 1927 as we can see for example in "The Dog Fancier, v.14, 1905. Eugene Glass" and in subsequent years volumes like in "The Dog Fancier (Established 1891), Vol. 22, No. 4. Battle Creek, Mich., U.S.A., April, 1913". However, it is difficult to define when the term was first used. So it would be better not to mention a specific date. Adventurous36 (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Very interesting find, it seems the article may need tweaking. I checked page 46 in your second link, "winner of 3 pit battles", charming.

The current source at "The term was first used in 1927" [2] (that's WP:LEAD only btw, not good WP-writing) states

"First Known Use 1927, in the meaning defined at sense 1" and sense 1 is

"or pit bull terrier : a muscular, short-haired, stocky dog (such as an American pit bull terrier or American Staffordshire terrier) of any of several breeds or a hybrid with one or more of these breeds that was originally developed for fighting and is noted for strength, stamina, and tenacity"

It seems to me that your 1913 source (can't tell on the 1905) is using the term in the same sense, but I'm not an expert. Per that source, I could go with something like "has been used since at least early 20th century." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Fwiw, here's a little info on The Dog Fancier: [3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I changed the article like so [4]. I ignored the 1905 source for now since I only see small snippets, but the new text fits anyway. It seems quite possible per that source that "pit bull" was used in the 19th century, but atm that's guessing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Updated to one from 1903. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Temperament

This article only talks about pit bull dogs biting people and being aggressive. It does not discuss other aspects of pit bull temperament like the entries for other types of dogs do. Many pit bulls are loyal, loving, and caring dogs who are great with children and families. Some are docile. It would be great to have a more well-rounded discussion of temperament besides just the popular perception that they bite. 104.49.199.31 (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately this page is routinely brigaded by an anti-Pit Bull hating group on Reddit. I would recommend double-checking sources and removing unreliable claims by yourself, as well as adding new sources, if you have the necessary expertise. People up on this discussion have pointed out that many sources on this article are unreliable.

As well:

-- Queen of Wa, friend of Wei (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

"Many pit bulls are loyal, loving, and caring dogs who are great with children and families" Are there any statistics/sources for this? Aside from anecdotal evidence. 2800:A4:17B9:9600:CDEA:C2CD:A274:C23E (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue#Pedantry,_and_other_didactic_arguments

Read the infobox you literally replied to as well.

--Queen of Wa, friend of Wei (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Unlike other dogs, pit bulls are best known for being controversial, of course this article will focus on that, and in a way that's unlike all other dog articles. The WP:NPOV policy requires it, and this is not negotiable. (The guideline literally says, This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.) There's really no point in arguing about it on this page. The IP who started this thread is making a request for something that can't be granted because it's in conflict with Wikipedia's core policies. It probably would have been best to have ignored this thread. Or perhaps for one of you to have not reverted my deletion of it a couple of months ago, when it was obvious enough to me that it wasn't going to go anywhere useful. Geogene (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

US Centricity

This article is written with the tone that Wikipedia, at least in English language, is an American website. The angle of the writing is about the American history of these breeds despite saying that they originated from the United Kingdom. 2A02:6B64:F05C:0:995:C80C:6B0E:487D (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello 2A02, I thought you deserved some kind of reply. Yep, there's a lot of US in the article. This may or may not be because the editors who have bothered to work on it find this interesting, or that the sources they found when looking mostly focused on the US. It may be that Pit bull is to some extent mostly an American "thing", and if so, the article should reflect that. What you can do is to gather your WP:RS on non-US Pit bull stuff and start editing. You have to WP:REGISTER and become WP:AUTOCONFIRMed first, but that's quite doable. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Note that I have proposed Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon for deletion, due to WP:BK It is perfectly fine as a source for articles, but does not meet the notability standards required for its own page.

PartyParrot42 (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

References

"pit bulls are mixed breeds"

This diff and edit summary looks like one editor's original research [5]. If we have editors edit warring, without sources, that pitbulls aren't descended from fighting dogs, then this is going to have to go to ArbCom. I don't want that, but there's been enough WP:RGW disruption in this topic area. Geogene (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

And there is actual DNA evidence for this here. [6] See Figure 1, Figure 4, that show Staffordshire terriers are bulldog/mastiffs with Irish terriers mixed in. And this source quote from the paper's text: For example, when dog fighting was a popular form of entertainment, many combinations of terriers and mastiff or bully-type breeds were crossed to create dogs that would excel in that sport. In this analysis, all of the bull and terrier crosses map to the terriers of Ireland and date to 1860-1870. This coincides perfectly with the historical descriptions that, though they do not clearly identify all breeds involved, report the popularity of dog contests in Ireland and the lack of stud book veracity, hence undocumented crosses, during this era of breed creation (Lee, 1894). So hopefully that will put this to rest. I find it unreasonable to demand "DNA evidence" for uncontroversial, pedantic things. Geogene (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Note that we do include in the page a citation for in the Identification section for Colorado Dog Fanciers v. Denver and Ohio v. Anderson, which I think are more than enough to illustrate how pit bulls can be visually identified by "a dog-owner of ordinary intelligence." IANAL but I believe this is similar to how patents are handled in the US, requiring someone with "ordinary skill in the art" required for analysis.

But I am a trained scientist, so I can talk about the DNA portion a bit. With dogs it can be hard for breed identification and depends largely on the individual test manufacturer, because of the historic nature of breeding dogs, in which certain breeds descend from others, i.e. aside from a few SNPs that might indicate a specific breed of dog, there will be a large amount of overlap in DNA due to breeds being descended from one or more other breeds that are themselves being included in the DNA analysis.

tl;dr It's probably important to note both of these, but like you say, requiring DNA evidence for pedantic things should be avoided. PartyParrot42 (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Unless I've misread the diff, I only see one thing, but it's a perfect example of WP:WEASEL being added to the page for no reason. (What was added was "believed to be"). I vote for removing that. It adds nothing to the page and hinders readability. As far as WP:RGW, have there been problems with this wikipedia author before? PartyParrot42 (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Canvassing from Reddit

Pro-pitbull editors are being recruited here, in violation of WP:CANVASS. Geogene (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I’ve seen the anti-pit folk do that as well. It’s going to be hard to make this article neutral and transparent if both sides are brigading. Since every username is taken, I am Bob. (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Anti-pitbull editors have been recruited here and here and here and here , in violation of WP:CANVASS. Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can call those instances you cited as "recruiting." All the examples you linked were from an anti-pitbull subreddit, but seemed to be legitimate discussions of Wikipedia content and perceived bias, not invitations for brigading.

- Wikipedia Has Removed All Pre-2020 Dog Attack Fatalities

- Asking for opinions about Wikipedia

- This bullshit on Wikipedia

- Systematic manipulation of Wikipedia article on pit bulls

These posts all seem to be pointing out concerns about WP:NPOV policy violations, mostly having to do with removing dog attack statistics from Wikipedia pages. 172.91.86.10 (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi random IP. It seems you failed to read any of the comments on those posts. Understandable if you are bias, but not very honest of you.Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It's random commenters on reddit. All the reddit pages (including the first one in this section) have some comments saying "I don't like it maybe I'll edit it."

Not much different from the original reddit article pointed out, Wikipedia needs a fixing! The entry for “pit bull” has been written to demonize our adorable breed! Any editors out there? Here’s Pippi for pet tax Doesn't sound very WP:NPV to me. That's a much clearer example of WP:CANVASS in the reddit title. The others look like they are at least trying to start a discussion regarding WP:NPV, whereas the first example is clearly asking for redditors to come to this page.

TBH I wouldn't put a ton of stock in this. People are going to talk about wikipedia on reddit. Wonder if /r/wikipedia is next. PartyParrot42 (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Once again, read the comments where there are several examples of users calling to get editors on here to "fight wiki editors". The comments on those links speak for themselves. Unbiased6969 (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

As A Symbol Bias

Are we going to talk about the bias in the Symbol? I mean tying pitbulls to white supremacists without also mentioning that

"Strong cultural ties exist between pit bull dogs and the Black community. The same is true of the Latino community. Research undertaken here to investigate this claim suggests that people of color are perceived to be the most likely owner of this breed of dog."[7]

Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

That may deserve a mention somewhere, but it's not clearly "symbol", is it? Also, I'm not sure what the source is, exactly, is it a dissertation per WP:SCHOLARSHIP? I'm guessing it's not by Ann Linder. Consider also articles like Breed-specific legislation and maybe Status dog. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Also from your source, "Breed-specific legislation may be being used as a new form of redlining to keep minorities out of majority-white neighborhoods." That's interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Btw, I started the Symbol section and I didn't add anything by Ann Linder to it because I had no idea she existed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The source is the Animal Law Review, and it is from Ann Linder. Not sure why you would doubt it was? Animal Law Review is a scholarly journal that focuses on legal issues related to animals. Depends on how your definition of symbol. The second definition of symbol is "a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract." I would definitely argue that there is sufficient evidence in history/media to show that pitbulls have been used as a symbol to represent the black communities pet ownership. Its not even really a debate as you can find many sources if you google "pit bulls black community".

As for your comment about the racism behind BSL laws, its something widely argued and currently litigated in George County as I write this. Unbiased6969 (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, if it is Animal Law Review, does WP:RSSM apply here? Arguing "Strong cultural ties exist between..." = "Symbol" is far-fetched to me, the section as currently written is more literal, and I don't think it should stray from that. This bit however, seems more on-topic; "[Pit bulls] appeared in music videos and were featured as cultural symbols of “‘urban ghettos’ and ‘Afro-American lifestyles.’”31"

On the wider angle, you could try starting a "Presence in different communities" or something like that section. Perhaps even a separate article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The History-section has "...the type becoming a status symbol in American gang culture." Trying to expand on that is an option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Its a reliable source. They are the most respected publication in their field. You are comparing it to a student newspaper and not a scholarly journal, which it is more like. Check its wiki if you need more proof. Its a law journal.

They're a symbol of the black community. You seem to have a definition of symbol that is narrower than it actually is. The pit bull is an Isomorphic Symbol of black culture. Symbols don't need to be pictures.

The fact that the article has pit bulls as part of "American gang culture" is a not objective, and again appears to be written in a way to direct a reader to forming an opinion on pit bulls. Pit bulls are part of black culture and black culture is not gang culture... Gangs don't go around promoting pit bulls and selling them. Drugs/violence/guns are symbols of gang culture, not pit bulls. They are part of black culture, and in the past those were not differentiated. You don't hear about how gangs are pushing pit bulls onto people or killing people with pit bulls. You see rap videos with pit bulls in them, which society then associated rap videos to gangs because skin color.

I can see room for creating a new section, but I think fixing the current is better addressed before adding more. Unbiased6969 (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Also Lagunitas Brewing uses a pit bull as a logo for their company. However, logos are not symbols. And skinheads using a pit bull as a logo doesn't symbolize Pit bulls to white supremacy. The wiki article on symbols does a good job explaining what symbols are and what they do. There are also scholarly journals that address on the topic of symbolism. But basically, using an image as a logo doesn't make it a symbol. Millions of people have pit bulls tattooed on their skins and don't belong to supremacism groups because a pit bull is not a symbol of white supremacism. A specific image of a pit bull may be an identifying marker for a gang, but that doesn't make the pit bull a symbol. Unbiased6969 (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, WP says that. It may be correct. It doesn't seem awful, if someone objects when you use it in an article, you can discuss that then. I'm not clear on if Ann Linder is a student or not, "Legislative Policy Fellow" doesn't sound like a student to me, but here my ignorance kicks in. I disagree that logos are not symbols[8][9], it's a broad word, and logos fit quite reasonably in this section. ADL disagrees with you, pretty much:[10] If you have a decent secondary source for the brewery having a pit-bull logo you can add it. Existing is not enough.

I checked the cites at "American gang culture", and they support it (not the NYT), except the Humanity & Society doesn't actually say "American" (and UPI speaks of "ghetto youth", but the context is American), so there may be case for removing "American". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Her bio is publicly available here[11]

I disagree with symbols/icons bit, but I can get back to you on more about them. As for a source for Lagunitas, the founder of the company in his own words[12]. Petey was a American Pitbull Terrier as mentioned in the Wiki Page.

As for gang culture, another study[13] that argues that pit bulls are linked to hip-hop culture, which is not gang culture. I think its best to describe that pit bulls have been exploited by gangs to guard illegal narcotics, and to intimidate and attack civilians, other criminals and police" But then remove that they're part of gang culture. There is insufficient evidence for it. There is much more evidence to show that they're part of urban culture. In fact, even citation 16 mentions hip-hop culture.

Either way, I think there is sufficient evidence that Pit bulls are an isomorphic symbol for black pet ownership. The piece by Ann Linder provides a lot of evidence of such. If you don't agree its a symbol, then what about a new section to talk about pit bull ownership, or at the minimum mentioning it in BSL, which doesn't address anything about the link to racism and BSL? Just seems odd that a wiki page would link a dog to white supremacists ownership and not mention that they're perceived to be owned by minority communities too? Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Not a student then. I found the same article on the beer, added it yesterday, and rearranged the Symbol-section a bit, adding Linder. I'm not sure there's insufficient evidence on gang culture, but I haven't looked further than this article. Gang/Hip-hop is not a contradiction, it can be both.

"isomorphic symbol for black pet ownership" sounds WP:OR to me, and I think many readers would have to look up isomorphic. Pit bull ownership (or my above suggestion) could be a decent section, or "Pit bull ownership in the US" if that's what you end up writing. The article doesn't talk about white supremacists ownership. Since Linder writes about BSL, that would seem the default place to add something from her article. Consider adding something about pit bulls to Hip hop (culture). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Can it be both? Sure, but they're not mutually exclusive. If anything its blood sports that is tied to gangs. I mean, cock fighting is huge among gangs, but its not promoted in rap videos... its the rap videos, which is hip-hop culture that gives them the "gang image". Because lets face it, society did not differentiate much between them.

Rather than add another section, I think it can be addressed through the BSL section? Rather than talk about hip-hop culture, it can be acknowledge that they're associated with POC which may have lead to a number of BSL laws being passed. Then mention a court case that is currently being litigated along with Linder's work. Should the court case prevail, then there is sufficient evidence to change that BSL laws were determined to be passed in at least one case for discriminatory reasons? Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I just reread this and I wanted to touch on the WP:OR comment.

I don't think its original research to say white lab coats are symbolic of doctors. I mean, every drug insurance has a paid actor wearing one for a reason and its something so widely known that its not really something anyone researches.

As for how that translates to pitbulls and black culture, they're both isomorphic symbols and are associated with each other when people think of them.

Pit bulls were selected as a black persons dog 4x+ than the next dog and that pit bulls were selected as a white person's dog 1/3 less than any other breed in Ann Linder's piece. I think that is sufficient evidence to prove what is already widely known, which is Pit bulls are viewed to be a "non-white" dog. Bronwen Dickey even touched on it in her book "Pit Bull - The Battle Over an American Icon", however, I think Ann Linder's study is more concrete proof of it that a historical analysis as it speaks to how society views things today, rather than the past. Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This source (Ann Linder's article) is known for its lack of historical detail. This is not a history paper. It's a public policy paper. Her affiliation is with the Animal Law and Policy Program at Harvard.

The "Historical Background" section (pg 55) makes a mention of the pitbull being "America's Dog" at the beginning of the 20th century, and then jumps straight to the 1980s as the dog's supposed start of its association with POC communities. Even if this history extends farther back than the 1980s, this article makes no mention of that. PartyParrot42 (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Where is this source known for its lack of historical detail? Or known at all? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

This article well-known for being cited by anti-Breed-specific legislation (BSL) groups for its supposed illustrations of connections between pitbulls and people of color, and its possible implications of discrimination in the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Organizations such as the Best Friends Animal Society lean heavily on this single article to imply that BSL implies racial discrimination, and therefore would require rollbacks of BSL.

But my main point is that if we were to include the history of the pitbull and its association with symbols, this is not a good historical source.

- It first mentions pitbulls as "America's Dog." We don't actually include that in this article anywhere, so if there is a better source that might be something to add to the article.

- Second, the history section repeats the "nanny dog" myth, citing a Sports Illustrated article about Michael Vick as its source. The source does not explain the origin of the term.

- Third, it then skips a handful of decades to (late) 1980s history, where it finally touches on the topic of POC as owners of the dog, citing a source which then cites several news articles from that time, including a New York Times article and one Rolling Stone, both from 1987.

tl;dr this source is mostly about an experiment which shows a perceived association between Black and Latino owners of pitbulls (page 64). The history section (page 55), which has the most detail about symbolic use of pitbulls over time, is weak and has a lot of gaps. PartyParrot42 (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok. If there are other opinions on this source, I'll guess we'll hear them. You seem to have dug deep. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

If the source contains the "nanny dog" myth, then it's unreliable. Geogene (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

If you want to talk about unreliable sources, how about dogsbite.org, which was determined by WP:RS to be an unreliable source. Why are you okay with that being used and not a scholarly journal? Seems strange.

For those that would like reference. Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

And it's in their WP:BLOG section, not a WP-good source. I'm guessing it was put there to "help" the WP:PRIMARY courtcase ref. Haven't tried to read the case, so I can't say if it's used correctly. That said, unreliable sources don't excuse each other. I don't have an informed opinion on the "If the source contains the "nanny dog" myth, then it's unreliable" opinion, I'd like to think there could be nuances. The "citing a Sports Illustrated" is a bit worrying, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The section was created to discuss bias in the section. Instead of presenting information countering the scholarly journal's argument, its its been chosen to create a strawman argument to try to discredit the argument of the author. Any reputable sources someone would like to present to counter the argument made by Ann Linder? I mean, you have court cases being heard on this very topic today, so clearly its not far fetched enough for a judge to throw it out. In fact, the jurisdiction in question has already stopped enforcing the law because of the lawsuit.

Oh I am not saying one excuses the other at all. I think the discussion has moved from the original intent of the section and if we are going to critique sources being used on this page, then lets do all of them. Lets get a section going and start critiquing them all. Dogsbite.org doesn't even pass the WP:RS guidelines, but yet here there are people arguing for its validity.

The issue is confirmation bias. You have people with an obvious agenda that wants to accept certain unreliable sources and then disregard those they feel are not reliable. Even though the source they like to use is a women that owns a .org website, and the one they don't want to use is a scholarly journal... Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

"The section was created to discuss bias in the section."

Sure, the section was, but not this thread

"strawman argument"

Please explain. I'm talking about the "Historical Background" section from , which is literally the first thing cited in the top of this thread.

"I think the discussion has moved from the original intent of the section"

This specific thread? Yes. This section? Not sure. But if you would like to address symbolism, and if you have citations from dogsbite that are being used in a way you disagree with, please put that in a new thread of this section and provide evidence rather than screaming "bias" without backing it up. PartyParrot42 (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Strawman: Acting like defeating one section of the the author's argument renders the whole thing defeated.

If you cared to venture into the previous archived talk pages, the proof is already there for you. I pointed you in the direction, its up to you to go read. Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Is the citation of the Sports Illustrated Article concerning? What about it being used as Source 52 on this WP? Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Linder uses it as her source that pit bulls were "nanny dogs," which is a historical fact we can look into, and SI doesn't cite any historical sources.

On the source you mention, there is a section in the article that says: "The injuries these dogs inflict are more serious than other breeds because they go for the deep musculature and don't release; they hold and shake," says Sheryl Blair of the Tufts Veterinary School, in North Grafton, Mass., which last year held a symposium entitled Animal Agression: Dog Bites and the Pit Bull Terrier."

That is at least is a direct quote from a veterinarian from a prestigious institution. Which seems to back up what's in the wikipedia article: "can exhibit a bite, hold, and shake behavior and at times refuse to release." PartyParrot42 (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought we were talking about source 15 in Linder's piece. I stand corrected. Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes I believe her usage of it in (15) in her piece may be appropriate. Citation (15) is actually a collection of sources (one of them being SI)

For that citation, Linder states: "Aside from statistics, a certain cultural mythology exists around pit bulls. Many believe that they are not only more vicious than other dogs, but more powerful and deadly"

And if we're just talking about "perceptions in the news" I believe SI would count as a news article for that purpose. PartyParrot42 (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Unbiased6969 Bringing up a totally different source when we are trying to analyze whether Sports Illustrated is a good historical source is whataboutism. Please don't, or make a separate thread. It doesn't help your case when you barge onto unrelated discussions

I've read the original source we were originally talking about, and its citation of Sports Illustrated for that fact. Go read that section of the Sports Illustrated article and then try telling me it is a good historical paper.

Back to your whataboutism, if you still have a problem with DogsBite, I would like to look into where we actually made the determination of it being not WP:RS? Is it actually just a blog? It certainly has a separate blog section, but I can't tell if we should be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I'm looking through our talk pages and finding poor arguments on all sides of the debate, but I haven't found the actual determination. Without further evidence as far as I can tell Unbiased6969 (how ironic) has a habit of bringing up sources they personally don't like banned as due to WP:RS.

@Unbiased6969 Please start a new thread and provide some links to your argument sources if you would like to seriously debate dogsbite.org being used in a way you find unsuitable PartyParrot42 (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Asks to create a new section then proceeds to continue to argue about DogsBites and my history with it. Hard to take your sentiment seriously when you engage in the very thing.

Sorry I have an issue with an unreliable source being used in a Wikipedia page. I guess that makes me bad? Its possible for someone to not like a source because its dishonest and objectively unreliable. Its a self-published cite for a woman that owns it and doesn't even pass the WP:RS guidelines, but yeah, poor evidence on both sides?

Here from the WP:RS page itself for you to read if you think there is no good arguement for Dogsbite.org being unreliable. There is far more if you want to go read it.

"Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable."

My point is, why are we creating strawman arguments to discredit the author of a scholarly paper when we are seemingly okay will allowing a self-published website by a woman with a self-admitted agenda against the article's topic, who's data gathering techniques have plenty of valid criticism?

Its not whataboutism, its pointing out the blatant hypocrisy and if we want to criticize some sources, then lets criticize them all. Maybe Ann Linder's isn't a reputable source, but why stop there? Lets purge this page of all unreliable sources. The easiest target being Dogsbite.

Oh and for a kicker, the WP page uses the Sports Illustrated Article that Ann Linder is being criticized here for including in her paper.... Its source 52, go take a look. By the same argument you all are making, what does that speak to the reliability of this WP? Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, this is not the section for that.

You have not said what these "strawman arguments" are. I have read WP:RS but that is not specific to dogsbite

Looking through the talk pages it just looks like you and PearlSt82 continually harping on dogsbite with little direct evidence. I'd prefer we get some more unbiased analysis of that page.

And yes, I agree our sources have problems. That's why we're literally looking into them right now. That sports illustrated source should also probably not be used in that way, but I'd have to verify how it's currently being used in the article. But it is clearly not being appropriately used in Linder's nanny dog reference, which is the source under current discussion. PartyParrot42 (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Start looking into it. I encourage you too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogsbite.org

https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2017-11-15/dangerous-dog-debate

https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatality-citations-data-collection.php

Its not going to be reliable by any stretch of the imagination. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am already looking into it. I'd like to find something more definitive than just a JAVMA news article though. PartyParrot42 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

A professional organization's journal isn't good enough. Well how about their own data collection methods... which have been criticized by the scientific community. In fact, if you read the JAVMA article you will see this quote from a CDC scientist.

"That's partly why the CDC stopped collecting breed data in dog-attack fatalities after 1998. Julie Gilchrist, a pediatrician and epidemiologist with the CDC, explained the challenges of studying dog bites during a presentation at the 2001 AVMA Annual Convention. "There are enormous difficulties in collecting dog bite data," Dr. Gilchrist said. "No centralized reporting system for dog bites exists, and incidents are typically relayed to a number of entities, such as the police, veterinarians, animal control, and emergency rooms, making meaningful analysis nearly impossible. Moreover, a pet dog that bites an owner or family member might go unreported if the injury isn't serious.""

The CDC stopped collecting this data because its not reliable and does more harm than good. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Not all journals were created equal, which is why we have to read the articles.

As far as the CDC not collecting data... I'm not sure how that is relevant to the current discussion? I mean I've read the CDC MMWR that immediately preceded the Jeffrey Sachs article currently cited. All it seemed to indicate was that it's hard to know the existing distribution of dogs and their breeds, so dog bites are likely severely undercounted.

Or are you just trying to make an argument that because the CDC said "counting dogs is hard" that we shouldn't look at anything on dogsbite? Can you explain how that's related? PartyParrot42 (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Lets follow the logic train.

CDC employs scientists > the scientists determine that data collection on dog attacks is not reliable because breed determination is not accurate > CDC stops collecting the data due to its unreliability > Dogbites.org uses a data collection method that is less reliable than that of the CDCs

Conclusion: Dogsbite.org data is equally or more unreliable than the CDC's data, which admitted its data was unreliable. Therefore, it is an unreliable source when referencing anything to do with statistics.

Side note: Not sure how the Wiki article still cites the CDC data as proof of anything when the CDC has already publicly stated that the data is unreliable? Seems like an unreliable source if the source is even throwing it out... smh Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

You are also being dishonest when you said "counting dogs is hard" is the reason the CDC quit tracking the data. It was because determining breed is so incredibly difficult and subjective that the results wouldn't be scientifically accurate by any stretch.

There is a lawsuit going on in George's County right now that point out that very thing. In fact, even DNA companies can't determine what is a pitbull reliably and state so in their terms of service that it they can't be used for anything legal because of it. DNA companies can't determine what a pitbull is, but dogsbite.org somehow can? CDC needs to employ Dogsbite.org I guess because Colleen Lynn, who hold no formal education or anything, has found a way to reliably collect data professional scientist could not. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Just because the CDC stops following something doesn't mean everyone else has to stop doing that. With the end of the COVID-19 health emergency, reporting to the CDC is no longer mandatory. That doesn't mean everyone else stops their studies.

When I said "counting dog bites is hard" I was referring to the CDC MMWR that said: "The findings in this report are subject to at least two limitations. First, because death-certificate data were not available, the two sources used for case finding in 1995-1996 probably underestimated the number of DBRFs and may represent only 74% of actual cases (1,2). Second, to definitively determine whether certain breeds are disproportionately represented, breed-specific fatality rates should be calculated. The numerator for such rates requires complete ascertainment of deaths and an accurate determination of the breed involved, and the denominator requires reliable breed-specific population data (i.e., number of deaths involving a given breed divided by number of dogs of that breed). However, such denominator data are not available, and official registration or licensing data cannot be used because owners of certain breeds may be less likely than those owning other breeds to register or license their animals (3)

How is that dishonest?

As far as the lawsuit you mention in Prince George's County, nothing has been decided yet, so I don't see how that is relevant. It may be a more appropriate source for a Breed-specific legislation topic once the case is decided. PartyParrot42 (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Why make a red herring fallacy? No one is arguing whether they can or cannot collect "data" for their own advocacy website. People do it all the time for any given cause. What is being argued is whether that data is reliable. Which it is not. If you can't figure that out by now, then I am done wasting my time.

Then you follow it up with a false equivalency fallacy. Quit acting like the data scientific organizations and researchers are collecting is anything comparable to Dogsbites.org.

If you don't have an agenda, why resort to these? Unbiased6969 (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The CDC has never claimed that it's impossible to determine a dog's breed, and even if it did, it would not represent a scientific consensus, and would not affect Wikipedia's use of other sources for the same information. The belief that dog breeds are not visually distinguishable appears to be a minority, perhaps WP:FRINGE minority, viewpoint, based on WP:PRIMARY research results in a couple of papers. I have no idea what that has to do with Linder's WP:PRIMARY research results that were for some reason published in a law journal, and I have no idea what a lawsuit in Maryland is supposed to have to do with any of this. Geogene (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a red herring. You literally said this: "CDC stops collecting the data due to its unreliability > Dogbites.org uses a data collection method that is less reliable than that of the CDCs"

By this determination, it sounds like you wouldn't accept any data as being reliable because it will never be as good as the CDC data that you are holding as a standard. We never do that in science. We attempt to find the best data even if it might not be ideal.

It appears this has already been discussed at length already. here. And noting the pit bull article diff history I'm getting a lot of WP:SPA vibes. PartyParrot42 (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

If the CDC, which was tracking dog bites at one point, stopped tracking dog bites because of the unreliability of the data collection, combined with the AVMA, SPCA, Humane Society, etc. all saying the same thing, which is that there is no reliable way to collect dogbite/breed statistics, then how does that not represent the scientific community. Its literally all the major scientific/research institutions on the topic... I mean, what more would you like? Congress to pass a bipartisan bill proclaiming such lmao.

How about this, how about you prove Dogsbite.org is reliable. What argument is there? Its self-published, which WP:RS guidelines already say are largely unreliable. Its data collection involves being a news aggregator and contains no scientific collection methods, let alone even a standard used to determine breeds. Please tell me what its got going for it to be reliable? Other than you like what they say. Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The CDC, along with your three favorite journals, is not "the scientific community"

Did you read this?

The site was originally created by one person, but I don't think that makes it automatically WP:SELFPUB. It's not like slashdot. PartyParrot42 (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Please do list other reputable associations that research this field? You seem to have a bias against the AVMA, even though its a non-bias professional organization whos members consists of vet profesionals.

If someone creates their own website, that's the very definition of WP:SELFPUB. From the wiki itself:

"Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources."

Its quite literally a self-published blog made and ran by Colleen Lynn. Nothing is changing that.

I have. If you did you will see it was not resolved. No one picked it up. What is your point, or do you not know that this was a resolution attempt that was never picked up, thus proving nothing other than this has been attempted to be resolved before? Unbiased6969 (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks on my talk page. This is twice that you have done that, I'm assuming so that nobody here notices it.

I highly doubt DogsBite.org is being run by just one person at this point. Colleen Lynn may have started it, but Arianna Huffington was a single-person founder of Huffington post. Does that mean that should be WP:SELFPUB as well? dogsbite is not like a personal web page or something.

And do we not care about WP:SPA? PartyParrot42 (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Done talking to you as its clear you have a bias. Anyone objective can see as you are fighting to keep a WP:SELFPUB source, but then arguing to remove a scholarly journal source because some references the author uses to not support their argument.

Nope, she still runs it. You think. Well I think she does. Thoughts don't count for much when it comes to sourcing.

From the website itself:

"Colleen Lynn resides in Austin, Texas and operates Lynn Media Group. On June 17th, 2007, she was attacked for approximately 5-seconds by a leashed pit bull while jogging in her former Seattle neighborhood. She was hospitalized for two days at Harborview Medical Center after undergoing surgery to repair a severe bone fracture. Four months later, she launched DogsBite.org. Learn more about Colleen Lynn by reading her four-year anniversary blog post about her attack."

It's ridiculous to compare the NEWS section of Huffpost to Dogsbite.org. Next I guess we are going to start sourcing Infowars too because Alex Jones employs people. Last I checked, Arianna does not control the Huffintonpost still, so I am not sure how you consider it self-published.

Either way, I have waste enough time here. Unbiased6969 (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh for any 3rd party. Lynn media group publishes dogsbite.org. So Colleen's small business, which she controls, publishes dogsbite.org. All available from her websites. Unbiased6969 (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Source link please? I don't see how one person starting something necessarily makes it WP:SELFPUB. That was my point with Huffington post, that news and advocacy orgs can start with one person and expand to more than that. I don't see how DogsBite would be different. PartyParrot42 (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Sources:

https://www.dogsbite.org/dogsbite-about.php

https://www.lynnmediagroup.com/about/

Logic Train:

New York Times/Huff was created by XXX XXX, so it must be self-published, and its considered to be reputable. Which is to say Infowars/dogsbite.org was created by one person, which is self-published, so they're reputable too.

The flaw in that logic is so bad. NYT/HUFF NEWS has their work vetted by peers and editors before being published. This is done so that their reputation doesn't take a hit and lose the trust in their readers. Dogsbite.org does not have their information vetted by anyone. Its sole purpose is to provide the opinions of someone who is not recognized as a subject matter expert.

You are using a fallacy of false equivalency to justify your argument, when there is much more context that separate the two that you choose to ignore. Unbiased6969 (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Those sources don't support your argument. There is nothing there about Lynn being the sole individual and publisher behind DogBites.

You saying you "think" she runs it is not a source.

If you're going to argue that it's just her publishing unvetted sources, you'll need more concrete evidence than that.

You said "then arguing to remove a scholarly journal source because some references the author uses to not support their argument."

In my experience, when scholarly journals are read it is typical to look at how strong the claims are supported by the references. PartyParrot42 (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Does the nanny dog argument have literally anything to do with the race argument? No. that's my point. No where was I arguing that because Linder said that they were Nanny Dogs means that they are black Americas dog.... Nor does it affect the integrity of her argument if you remove it.... But all this attention over that, but not once is anyone arguing the main argument of her work, which is what I stated it for.... Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you could look through her other sources and find something useful there. But as I mentioned before:

- Her historical section is weak and lacks detail. The section on any association with Black Americans indicates a possible association starting in 1987. I'm pretty sure there are other authors that have looked into the history of Black Americans and pit bulls earlier than that. Pretty sure if there's a relationship there it goes back farther than that.

- Her experimental section found a small association between perceived ownership of pit bulls by Black and Latino individuals. (they said "guess the race/age/sex of dog-owner). That's not history, that's current. It's a pretty big leap to go from that to saying that the dog is a huge symbol in the Black community. PartyParrot42 (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

A small association? Do tell me what other dog breed came even close to be associated with black dog ownership? German Shepherd, which was less than 1/4 selected that that of pit bulls?

A 4x+ from the next associated breed is not small....

More context you may have missed is that white ownership was about 1/3 for pitbulls as other selected breeds.

Comapring the 57 and 82 is missing the point and not being honest. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by "Comapring the 57 and 82 is missing the point" Are "the 57" and "82" sources you're pointing to somewhere or numbers? PartyParrot42 (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

When looking at the numbers from the study. Just looking at Whites being selected 57 times and blacks being selected 82 times and saying there is a small association is misleading.

You are not capturing the true context of the study. Which is that pit bulls were selected as a black persons dog 4x+ than the next dog and that pitbulls were selected as a white person's dog 1/3 less than any other breed.

That is the true narrative of the study. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I finally found the table you are referring to, on page 61. Next time please be clearer so we don't have to guess at what these magic numbers are when you bring them up. It's hard to have a discussion otherwise.

Do you think we need a section on racial/gender/sex bias? They definitely found a perceived association with all of these three. And for gender and sex the association was much stronger. Don't forget Latino individuals either. They were also included in the study.

But I still think the historic explication in this article is sub-par and shouldn't be used as far as explaining the symbolism of that. PartyParrot42 (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

You were the one that cited the study... I don't think its unreasonable for me to expect that you read it and the material presented....

I wouldn't be against it. The article as it stands, ties pitbulls to white supremacy, without even touching on the topic of the stigmas the dogs have in regards to their ownership. Simply stating that pitbulls are a symbol of black dog ownership makes it so you don't need its own section, but as I mentioned before, maybe you didn't read it, I wouldn't be opposed to its own separate section discussing the cultural ties among minority communities and pit bull ownership... Unbiased6969 (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

"It is important to note that while this study attempts to measure perceptions of pit bull ownership, there is no comprehensive data on actual ownership currently available. However, if the true distribution of pit bull ownership resembles the perceived distribution illustrated here, it may provide the basis for a legal challenge to breed-specific laws." - p64

Even she says she's not willing to go that far. And is it really a "symbol"? I think the word you're looking for is "perceived association." Is there any current data on this? I feel like I'm the only one in this thread actually providing my citations. PartyParrot42 (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Bruh, like seriously. This whole argument has been about how pitbulls are perceived to be black dog ownership. And your rebuttal to that argument is the study saying it only shows that pitbulls are perceived to be owned by blacks/latinos?

No one is arguing to know the true breed statistics and pet ownership because... shocker... you can't reliable determine that because the data collection is not reliable.

Perceived association. I think you should read up on isomorphic symbols. You seem to be ignorant to the many type of symbols there are.

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol

Isomorphic symbols are doctors and white lab coats, or pitbulls and black dog ownership. They are widely associated with something. Something the study already proved, even though its widely known and you likely hold the same sentiment. Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

"Bruh", Linder said she couldn't perform an accurate analysis without those statistics. And she uses DogBites.org as a source. On. The. First. Page.

Stop with this WP:NOPA BS

You have continually remove anything related to Dogsbite.org (including Time, Huffington Post), and remove or obfuscate everything you don't agree with, usually referring to it as not being WP:RS. This is not ok. We're trying to make an accurate page. When you continually remove sources and make diffs that go against the consensus, that's not cool. PartyParrot42 (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Never claimed Linder's piece wasn't free from criticism, and you named one of the valid criticisms of her piece.

Nice red herring yet again. Clearly point out you know nothing about symbolism to be qualified to determine what is a symbol and what isn't, but instead sticking to the facts of the topic, you engage in yet another red herring fallacy.

Pitbulls are an isomorphic symbol for black pet ownership and no amount of red herrings will change that. Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep on bringing up Red Herring arguments? I don't see how that applies in these instances. You asked for one flaw with the argument, and I cited what Linder said herself.

You said there wasn't breed data for this, and somehow that means I don't understand symbolism?

I point out that she used DogsBite.org as a source and you dislike it so much that you call it one of few the valid criticisms of her piece?

And thank you for the insults on my talk page. That was a nice touch. PartyParrot42 (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

you clearly don't know what a red herring is either or you wouldn't have asked. Its your attempt to change the topic rather than address the topic at hand.

I did not ask for 1 flaw. In fact, I will restate my reply here for you to read.

"Bruh, like seriously. This whole argument has been about how pitbulls are perceived to be black dog ownership. And your rebuttal to that argument is the study saying it only shows that pitbulls are perceived to be owned by blacks/latinos?

No one is arguing to know the true breed statistics and pet ownership because... shocker... you can't reliable determine that because the data collection is not reliable.

Perceived association. I think you should read up on isomorphic symbols. You seem to be ignorant to the many type of symbols there are.

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol

Isomorphic symbols are doctors and white lab coats, or pitbulls and black dog ownership. They are widely associated with something. Something the study already proved, even though its widely known and you likely hold the same sentiment." Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Insults? Please explain where the insult is, but on your talk page. Please refrain from getting off topic as this talk page is for the pit bulls wiki page. Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I asked it because I didn't think that calling my comment a Red Herring was appropriate, so I didn't know what you meant. I'm not a mind-reader, so I asked. You brought that up. If you would like to say which arguments those apply to, you should be explicit.

On my page you said "Judging by your lack of objectivity and intellectual honesty. Its clear you have a bias you are unable to break free from. Quit wasting my time appearing like you're objective and just be honest." right after my talk edits on this page. And earlier in this thread, you called me a racist because I asked for a better source on breed distribution for those groups. PartyParrot42 (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Still can't seem to talk about pit bulls being a isomorphic symbol for black dog ownership...

Weird you continue to bring up another talk page. But since you insist. If you read WP:PA

"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. "

The evidence of your bias is here bud. Anyone can see it. And once again, I fail to see how responding to your statement calling me dishonest by calling yourself dishonest rises to the level of an insult, but hey its 2023 and everyone is insulted by everything I guess.

I never called you anything remotely close to being a racist. That's a really weird thing to make up. Anyone is welcome to ctrl:f or scroll up and read to see that's a blatant lie.

Clearly done talking to you at this point. Unbiased6969 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Notable pit bulls

Nipper the Great

The inclusion of Nipper in this list seems incorrect. Most sources (including current Wikipedia pages) point to either a Jack Russell Terrier or Fox Terrier.

Current sources in the pit bull article include:

- 1st source (ProQuest): "We can tell you that according to his owner, British artist Francis Barraud, who acquired Nipper in 1884, the dog was a fox terrier."

- 2nd source (The Pit Bull Life: A Dog Lover's Companion): "While some call Nipper a pit bull , no one knows the breed of the real dog he was based on." I tried to verify this in the book, but there is no citation in the main text, and the bibliography has no mention of Nipper.

- 3rd source (The New Yorker): "The dog sitting attentively and eternally next to that old-fashioned phonograph horn on RCA Victor records is a pooch named Nipper, who looks to me like a fox terrier or something close."

So 2/3 references listed in the current article do not validate the claims made. The second one might, but I was unable to verify it in its bibliography.

Current Wikipedia articles referencing Nipper:

- His Master's Voice: "which depicted a Jack Russell Terrier dog named Nipper"

- Nipper: "He was likely a mixed-breed dog, although most early sources suggest that he was a Smooth Fox Terrier, or perhaps a Jack Russell Terrier, or possibly "part Bull Terrier."" I looked into the "part Bull Terrier" source (The Encyclopedia of dog breeds), but it didn't have a citation for where it states "It was based on his dog, Nipper, who was partly Bull Terrier"

Most of these sources, including two in the current pit bull article, indicate Nipper being primarily a terrier, usually a Fox Terrier or a Jack Russell Terrier. There may be some open questions whether he had a small mix of pit bull as part of his breed, but the sources cited point to Nipper as chiefly a terrier.

A note on edits:

The pit bull page edit history shows that the original insertion of Nipper to this article occurs as the following text: "Nipper, a bull terrier mixbreed, is the dog in Francis Barraud's painting His Master's Voice." The citation for this text is listed as Radio Canada International, but this source references Wikipedia (doesn't list exact page), which I believe may be a WP:CIRCULAR issue. Note also that the entry on Nipper for the pit bull article page has been added and removed multiple times. Rather than perpetuate this edit war, I'd prefer we resolve this issue on the Talk page and then make a decision on inclusion. My personal conclusion based on the majority of sources is that Nipper was either a terrier or terrier-dominant mix, and therefore does not belong on this page. PartyParrot42 (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The Newsday/PQ reads "There has been some controversy about whether Nipper,the famous RCA dog peering quizzically into the horn of a phonograph, was a so-called pit bull... Also, of the several bull terrier and fox terrier club spokesmen and breeders we spoke to, only one - a bull terrier club president - said the dog was a pit bull. Everyone else agreed that Nipper was a fox terrier." That supports the WP-article text, like "The Pit Bull Life". The New Yorker is for the "commonly seen" part, illustrating that people look at Nipper and see different things, but may be a bit redundant. Ping to @Atsme and @Oknazevad if you're interested.

As a general note, there is no demand on WP for WP:RS to cite their sources, or that the sources they cite cite their sources, etc, we have to stop at some point. Don't dig too much, not for WP-purposes anyway. Previous discussion and more sources at Talk:Pit_bull/Archive_11#Nipper. IMO, the sources used in this WP-article supports "at times referred to as a pit bull", this is a view that has been noted, so per the sources (there are others) and WP:PROPORTION, my view is that the sentence is ok, and fwiw, it's a very notable dog. Reasonable people may disagree. Per previous discussions (yep, there's more), I think a WP:RFC may be the next step to attempt a consensus on this.

On current WP-articles with Nipper, they have to take care of themselves per WP:OTHERCONTENT. What is WP:PROPORTION here may not be in the Nipper article, or it may be. On the Radio Canada, looking at the other pics I think "The famous listening dog *Nipper* the symbol of RCA records, Deutsche Gramophon and others was a pit bull, or pit bull mix, possibly with a Jack Russel © wikipaedia" is meant to refer to where they got the image. The "© wikipaedia" as written doesn't make much sense (neither WP or Commons has any copyright on that pic), but it's what I think. And of course, the source is not used in this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

For the Wikipedians, text under discussion:

• Nipper, a mongrel at times referred to as a pit bull, though commonly seen as a non pit bull-type terrier, is the dog in Francis Barraud's painting His Master's Voice.

References

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I've read through the relevant talk pages on the Nipper issue:

- Talk:Pit bull/Archive 9

- Talk:Pit bull/Archive 10

- Talk:Pit bull/Archive 11

If you'd like to include the phrasing about Nipper possibly being a pit bull, I agree with the comments stating that per WP:ONUS, we'd need much better sources for this, and those have not been provided, even in historic versions of the Pit bull page. WP:NPOV thus requires us to follow the majority of legitimate sources stating Nipper's more likely terrier background.

1. Richterman, Anita is a very brief source, and does not support the claim of Nipper as a pit bull. It specifically states Nipper is a Fox Terrier, and that as far as dissenting opinions, "only one - a bull terrier club president - said the dog was a pit bull", implying this is not a common view

2. "The Pit Bull Life" honestly seems like a coffee table book. My opinion on this source remains unchanged. I'm furthermore convinced that, "While some call Nipper a pit bull..." falls under MOS:WEASEL

3. New York Times article: This source makes no mention of any pit bull lineage for Nipper anywhere in the article. @User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång mentioned "The New Yorker is for the "commonly seen" part, illustrating that people look at Nipper and see different things, but may be a bit redundant.". This idea does not appear anywhere in that article.

This opinion (Nipper most likely being a terrier, and Pit bull claims being unsupported) is in line with statements from both User:Atsme and User:Oknazevad in the archived Talk pages. Judging by the quality of sources, I think at this point an WP:RFC would be overkill and not add anything. It's pretty clear that the Nipper/pit bull claim is at best weakly supported, and at worst is a purely speculative opinion, and should therefore be removed from this article.

PartyParrot42 (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that for this article/section we need better sources. It's pretty much a pop-cult section, not a WP:BLP. There's books and uni-press (uni-press in the archives). We don't say Nipper is a Pit bull, we say sources have called him that, and they have, that is not weakly supported. WEASEL say "views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source." They are. This isn't scientific fact, it's eye of the beholder stuff.

On Angell, in that article the author says Nipper looks to him like a fox terrier or something close, and that others have called him a Jack Russell, that is people looking at Nipper and seeing different things. Speculations about Nipper are speculative yes, but WP:RS are allowed to speculate all they want.

The sentence falls under editorial discretion, there is an element of WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT here, like a discussion about what WP:LEADIMAGE is best for an article. We'll see if more editors can be arsed to have an opinion. An RFC can, sometimes, help reaching some sort of conclusion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

When in doubt, leave it out. I got think there's enough to include the famous pup. Wikipedia isn't here to be a clearing house of under-informed speculation, even if that speculation is in reliable sources. oknazevad (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

And what makes this speculation under-informed is you declaring it such. There is no doubt the pup has been called a pit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The speculation is that on the sources. We don't have to include all speculative material in sources if it's not the broad conclusion of outside sources. Plus we still run into the WP:WEASEL issue with the self-contradictory phrasing. Notably, nowhere in the actual Nipper article calls him a pit bull. So the inclusion here is undue weight given to a common error. Because that's what it is. An error. We don't need to point out other people's mistakes. That just makes us look silly. oknazevad (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, when something like this is discussed repeatedly on wiki, it's better to include it in a sort of List of common misconceptions style, than to exclude it. A stronger statement like "Some mixed breed dogs and dogs of similar breeds, such as Nipper, have been misidentified as being pit bulls" might be appropriate.

The mechanism seems to be:

• Check article for my favorite thing
• Learn something new
• Keep my mouth shut

as opposed to what we otherwise get, which is:

• Check article for my favorite thing
• See that it's completely missing, so I add it
• Launch edit war in the article and flamefest on the talk page.

If some fraction of readers expect something in a given article, then it's often most effective to address that thing directly, than to fight to keep it out for years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Make of that what terrier you will, other people have

My take is that "misconception" doesn't quite fit here. A Pit Bull type dog is a dog that looks a certain way, to quote WP, "any crossbred dog that shares certain physical characteristics with these breeds". This particular dog's looks is known per a painting made 3 years after he died. Since at least 1987 (probably earlier per the 1987 source, but can't guess how much) some sources, including generally WP:RS ones like uni-press, have looked at Nipper, aka RCA dog, and said "Pit bull". And it's sustained:[14][15] (those examples aren't uni-press). Of course, there are also sources who doesn't mention pit:[16], The New Yorker listed above and many others. So I'm still at "the current sentence is reasonable content in this article." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a WP-argument, but have to quote this ad:[17] "Chihuahua, male, 8 months old, looks like RCA dog." Who wouldn't want that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Sources

CDC Data

If you are going to use CDC data in the article, then it is also proper to give the reader the context that the CDC itself views that very data unreliable to make any meaningful conclusions from. This helps the article achieve WP:NPOV.

Otherwise, you are citing data that the source itself has admitted is unreliable, without disclosing that.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiased6969 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Sergeant Stubby?

Can somebody explain why he is included on the list of notable pit bulls? He was obviously a mixed breed dog and doesn't resemble a pit Bull very much. He looks more like a Boston terrier, should his name be removed from the list? Twelvethirty (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you check the references? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources check out, but I also wonder what a pit bull looks like to you. You may want to dive into the topic a little and you will see that Sergeant Stubby does look like a pit bull type dog. In fact, Boston Terriers originate from Bull Terrier dogs, and the term "pit bull" is a term used to describe dogs that descended from the Bull-terriers. So, while Stubby may have been a Boston Terrier, he most certainly was a pit bull. Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This failed verification. The Washington Post said that a previous version of the story called the dog a pit bull, but revised it to say that its breed is debated. I have changed the wording to match the sourcing. Geogene (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

And I reverted you,[18] I hope you'll agree the new sentence was a bit strange, and the other source confirms he has been called a pit bull. As does the WaPo (since they called him that until someone pointed out that they didn't have the DNA to prove it) I read the WaPo source before it was updated, didn't know about the update. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've since added the By Whom tag, because I want to know if this is a real debate, or whether this is a simple mistake from low quality sourcing. If it's a legitimate controversy, then it should be possible to name adherents of both sides. Geogene (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I honestly don't think the article will be improved by adding "by author Maria Goodavage and the Washington Post, books like [19][20] etc." I doubt this is a "legitimate controversy", it's just more PB eye-of-the-beholder stuff. Some sources will say PB, some won't. Like I said, nobody has his dna, but must it be a legitimate controversy because of that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, according to Michigan Humane, his dna may be available. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

One more:[21], by Michigan Humane. Based on these, what would you accept as a WP-good "by whom"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

So we've got a humane society, a journalist, and a book by a dog blogger? This looks more like a low quality sourcing issue than a real world disagreement. In that case, the entry should be deleted. Geogene (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Goodavage being the dog blogger, I guess. What's wrong with journalists, authors and a humane society in this context? It's not medical science. "Low quality sourcing issue"... These are not, in context, low quality. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No, for what it's worth I thought I saw a blurb for Robin Hutton, the author of the book you linked to about a war horse [22] earlier was described as a dog blogger. I can't find that now, all I can find is "equine enthusiast". Well, unfortunately pet related topic areas do have lower quality sourcing. If this were straight history, I doubt that any of these sources would be considered reliable for specific facts. Geogene (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Last low quality source for the evening: "Chapter Six. Fable for the End of a Breed". With Dogs at the Edge of Life: Columbia University Press, New York Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press, 2015, pp. 85-110. https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.7312/daya16712-008 page 88. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Still using a philosophy book for a historical claim. Geogene (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

By Colin Dayan, no less. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any other university press books, or is this all? Because we could attribute this POV to Dayan in text. Geogene (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason here to discard sources because they're not university press books. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't care enough about this particular locus of text to argue this with you further. I feel a little like my time has been wasted by you arguing in favor of journalistic sources while you were holding back a university press book. But I don't like the way pet-related articles are flush with low quality sourcing like this, and at some point we'll have to visit it in depth. Geogene (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

By low quality sources, are you referring to a Times article that is used to cite animals24/7.org data in a Wikipedia article?

Because if you want to have a discussion on low wiality sources, I am ready to start a discussion on that again. Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Not in this thread, please. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have failed in addressing that Boston Terriers are decendents of Bull Terriers.

Pit bull is a term used to describe dogs that decended from Bull Terriers.

So even if Stubby was a Boston Terrier, he was still a Pit bull.

Unless you are saying that Stubby does not have the appearance of a dog that decended from Bull Terriers? Otherwise I fail to see why this is even a topic of disagreement? Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Pit bull is an undefined term, so talking about a mongrel as if it were a purebred without DNA evidence of ancestry is pointless, and a waste of valuable time. Maybe some day Wikipedia will catch up to the real science instead of trusting anecdotal evidence published in what are considered reliable sources despite their dependency on anecdotal accounts and half-baked observer reports (some of which have had the good sense to provide disclaimers for not being able to identify a particular breed). It is a proven fact that visual IDs are faulty. It is a known fact that pit bull is not a breed. It is a known fact that the CDC stopped including breed IDs in their reports because those IDs were riddled with problems. Folks can argue until they’re blue in the face, but it is not going to turn a mongrel "pit bull type" into a pure-bred dog, regardless of how many unverifiable reports are cited. And I mean unverifiable in the sense that the identity of the actual dogs involved in most cases is unverifiable, and good editors will be digging deep enough to corroborate and verify the reporting instead of taking it at face value. We certainly avoid taking individual studies at face value, preferring instead to cite reviews. We also prefer larger numbers in trial studies, but even that has been discounted where the term "pit bull" crops up. Got advocacy? Pit bull is not a breed of dog; it is a layman’s term for a mongrel that looks like something that observer thinks is a pit bull, or heard a similar dog called a "pit bull". Show me the DNA proof, a copy of the dog's registration papers, and name of the official breed registry that has its documented pedigree because without it, you have a mongrel. Atsme 💬 📧 22:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC) 

  Pit bulls are like pornography. I know it when I see one. 24.179.140.109 (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)