Talk:Pit bull

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2023

After the line: Some studies have argued that the type is not disproportionately dangerous, offering competing interpretations on dog bite statistics. Independent organizations have published statistics based on hospital records showing pit bulls are responsible for more than half of dog bite incidents among all breeds despite comprising 6% of pet dogs.

Add the sentence: However, DNA analysis of mixed-breed dogs conducted by the company Embark suggests that pit bulls may comprise a greater share of the U.S. dog population, with nearly 15% of tested dogs demonstrating either American Pit Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier ancestry. (Source: https://embarkvet.com/resources/most-common-dog-breed-ancestry/) Slipagyp (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.  Spintendo  05:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd probably not want to make this edit, if there were further discussion, because there would have to be some WP:SYNTH to connect the proposed new source to the sources now on the page. Also, the proposed new source is essentially a commercial for the company. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2023 (2)

The sentence " Independent organizations have published statistics based on hospital records showing pit bulls are responsible for more than half of dog bite incidents among all breeds despite comprising 6% of pet dogs" should use primary, rather than secondary sources. I don't know what the source for the "more than half" claim is, but I believe the population estimate comes from the site Animals 24/7: https://www.animals24-7.org/2023/06/28/how-many-doggies-are-in-the-window-dog-breed-census-2023/. Please modify this footnote.

If a primary source cannot be found that asserts that over half of dog bite incidents are attributable to pit bull dogs, that part of the sentence should be deleted. Slipagyp (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.  Spintendo  05:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd definitely oppose doing this, because secondary sources are better than primary sources for this purpose. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree,

When evaluating source of information you must start at the beginning. The information originates from animal24-7.org, which has been found by the Wikipedia community to be unreliable.

The only time secondary can bring validity or credibility to an otherwise unreliable source is if the author or the organization that published it is an authority in the field being dicussed. Times, Forbes, and all the other secondary sources that may utilize the unreliable data are not authorities in the field being dicussed, nor are their editors.

At some point i will take this issue to the wikipedia community reliable source to get a consensus and have it changed if a consensus it reached.Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 102 Section 4

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmood4 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Wikiwikieda, Llove123, Reneeterry05!, Kalebc13, Jjdial00, Dahjmere Reddick, Zariyah05, Luvv.Empress.

— Assignment last updated by DoctorBeee (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This is encouraging to hear. The page can definitely use more of a scholarly touch to it. Good luck, a good place to start would be the talk page archives, but I am sure there is more out there that hasn't already been discussed too. Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

We'll see what happens, course assignment editing varies in quality. And this is a difficult topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure it does vary, but the page was largely written without a NPOV by users with bias that discredit academia and cling to stats made by self-published blogs already determined by the WP:RS community to he unreliable. If it's not that, it's a 2000 CDC study that the CDC discredited not a year after it was published. Academia by a huge margin has concluded that the raising of a dog is a much stronger indicator towards its behavior than its breed.

I diageee, its not a hard topic if feelings and biases get left out, just some have a hard time separating them. The data is out there. Its not perfect though, because there are so many variable that the cost of running a single-variable study for the lifetime of various breeds is not feasible.

The dogs are much more capable of causing damage if they do chose, but it hasn't been shown that their breed is the reason why. Others may self-publish data saying otherwise, but I will just start my own .org and publish the opposite and it would be just as credible. Unbiased6969 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

What reason would be responsible for a type of dog being more capable of causing damage other than the type of breed? Physical make up is what determines the strength of the dog and the breed is what determines the physical make up of a dog. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The question isn't whether pit bull types have the physical characteristics to potentially cause injury if they attack a person. The question is whether or not pit bull types are inherently behaviorally predisposed to attack people, or if it's a matter of training. oknazevad (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I strongly encourage student editors to familiarize themselves with the talk page archives of this page, before attempting to make WP:NPOV changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

As do I. I also strongly encourage evaluating sources on both sides before coming to a conclusion, and the WP:RS Noticeboard 313 Archive regarding the reliability of dogsbite.org, dogbitelaw.com, daxtonsfriends.com, animals24-7.org, nationalpitbullvictimawareness.org, and fatalpitbullattacks.com

Any data originating from those websites and multiple others like them should not even be included in an article as determined by the Wiki community. I would also check out the WP:Dogs/RS as they have done a lot of work too on vetting sources that are more focused to dogs.Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

New UK bans on XL bullies

Should that be mentioned here? Geogene (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you link to potential sources? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot out there, here's a couple from the Guardian [1], [2]. Here's one from the BBC, listing deaths attributed to the XL bullies and a 30% increase in dog attacks in the UK over the last five years [3]. And here is a Telegraph article explaining that those "American XL bullies" are just dogs bred from pit bull semen shipped to the UK from the US, that were marketed as "American bullies" because "pit bulls" were already banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act. [4]. Geogene (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I suggest reaching a consensus before making edits. I don't think sources are the issue regarding this matter. Unbiased6969 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, since you edited your comment after my previous on, here it goes. An XL Bully is not an American Pitbull Terrier because its DNA comes from it. It is its own separate breed. Would you also call "pit bull" an Old English Terrier simply because its DNA is partly from that breed? No. What you're advocating to do is to add another separate breed into the umbrella of "pit bull". Once again, it belongs on the Bully page, probably its own heading, and exploring a deep factual dive into the XL Bully. Adding on the American Pitbull Terrier page that the breed was used in the formation of the XL Bully would also be appropriate. However, none of this is relevant to the pit bull wiki page as its just a generic term used for a variety of dogs. I guess I will start adding more information of Boxers, Boston Terriers, Bulldogs, and countless other breeds to the page since we are not adding any information that can loosely be tied to the term "pit bull". Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The source I gave [[5]] said that breed registrations basically mean nothing here, and were being used to evade the law. Specifically, one of the dogs that was being used a stud was registered as both an "American Bully" and an "American Pit Bull Terrier", and breeders buying its semen could pick whether they wanted their litters to be pit bulls as a matter of record or not. Source also says it's likely that pit bulls will be rebranded as new pseudo-breeds now that the "American Bully XL" is banned, so that breeders will be able to continue to evade the pit bull ban in the future. Geogene (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Fascinating. Seems like the Telegraph article is confirming what I had already expected, that the supposed American Bully XLs that were claimed to be such an issue in the British press were likely not actual American bullies but the (relatively new) breed was being used to cover up illegal breeding. (I made a comment to that end last September at Talk:American Bully.) As for including it here, I'd say that a brief mention that the American bully was added to the list of breeds banned by the Dangerous Dogs Act might be warranted, but that also there's some doubt as to the validity of the breed identification (which can be a knock agains BSL in general). oknazevad (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no registered breed for a pitbull, unless you are referring to the APBT, which is not what this article is for. Its for the umbrella term "pitbull". So as I said previously, it would be more applicable on the APBT page. Secondly, if the DNA is actually APBT then what you are arguing is that people smuggle the APBT into the UK using fraudulent means calling them Bullies. Noteworthy for Bully and the APBT pages. Still nothing to do do with the term pit bulls, unless you can find language in the bill that says its for pit bull type dogs, which probably won't as they're already banned by a previous law.

No one is denying its ancestry tracing it back to the APBT. However this is not the APBT page. Its not an XL Bully if its DNA comes from a Staffordshire, nor any other breed other than the APBT, so its really applicable to the generic pit bull page. Allowing it would draw further confusion between what a pit bull is and what an APBT is for a reader. Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Nope. Pit bulls are already banned in the UK, so I am not sure what relevance that ban is. This is what I meant when I said its hard for some to remove their bias. Shall we include information about boston terriers, boxers, and dozens of other breeds that descended from the bull dogs? Or just anything bad we can find in media? Unbiased6969 (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Realistically, this page should define what a pit bulls is, then list the various breeds that fall under the umbrella with a short description. A very well done example of this is the Terrier Page. Then each breed should have their own BSL heading on their respective page and matched appropriately. The only BSL that should be included on this page are for bans that are explicitly spell out "pit bull" or "pit bull type". Otherwise, its irrelevant and should be on the specific breeds page. Unbiased6969 (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with other editors, that we have to be careful about not lumping breeds together. I also think that the last paragraph of the Breed-specific legislation section already covers the existence of a ban, so we would have to be sure that the new XL ban adds something relevant to this particular page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree about the last statement of the BSL. The original bill bans not only the APBT but also a "look" of dogs that resemble. Which is why I think it is fitting for the pit bull page. Its not just banning a breed, but also various mixes that appear a certain way, which are commonly referred to as pit bulls making it relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiased6969 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

References

The true APBT

The American Pit Bull Terrier is not an umbrella term said by the UKC and ADBA also the ABKC they’re a breed bred for blood sport and are prone to dog and animal aggression. They can come in every color but Merle and have a deep and rich history. Some popular apbt breeders are Del Manto Dogs. The American Bully came from a apbt line called “Razor Edge”. There are also books on the breeds history (apbt) “Dogs of Velvet and Steel”. Most Put Bulls found in shelters only share a small percentage of the true apbt potential. They were bred to be animal agressive and for “game” . UKC: https://www.ukcdogs.com/american-pit-bull-terrier

ADBA: https://adbadog.com/heritage-american-pit-bull-terrier-conformation-standard/

ABKC: https://abkcdogs.net/breeds/american-pit-bull-terrier/

2601:47:4001:1150:D12B:AE47:166F:2F01 (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a separate article to American Pit Bull Terrier. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Sir/ma'am, this is the Pit bulls wiki page. Shall I suggest going here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Pit_Bull_Terrier Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Pitbulls were bred for fighting

A misinformed editor, at one point, added their own opinions into the article, not accurately depicting a study's author, but then citing the study as if the author made that statement.

Specifically, "Pit bulls were originally bred for bull baiting and dog fighting". The source used is here.

There author clearly states that Pit Bull Terriers were breed for fighting, which this page is not dedicated to and is irrelevant for all the other breeds that fall into the "pit-bull-type". No where in the study does it mention that Pit Bull Terrier would be used synonymously with pit bulls, in fact, the author clearly states that "pit bulls" contain several breeds, one of which is the APBT, and then goes into talking about how the Pit Bull Terrier has a history of fighting. Clearly the author intended that to apply to the only breed with a history, the APBT, which is why pit bull, or pit bull-type was not used. It made the author factually correct.

If the article was to be quote accurately, it would read "[American] Pit Bull Terriers were historically bred for fighting".

However, Including this within the article causes further confusion between "pit bulls" and the APBT. It also misleads the reader into believing that all pit-bull type dogs were bred to fight, which is factually incorrect. Confusion among the two terms is rampant, as illustrated by an editor above in the titled "The true APBT" heading.

If you disagree, please provide a factual and logical argument against it. Unbiased6969 (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The statement, all pit-bull type dogs were bred to fight .... is factually incorrect is false. The first sentence of the Britannica article states explicitly that pit bulls are fighting dogs [6]. Geogene (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

From your same source:

"The name has been applied historically to several breeds of dogs—including the Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier..."

Oxford dictionary[7] "A dog of an American variety of bull terrier, noted for its ferocity."

Clearly, its a term that applies to several dog breeds.

American Staffy, using your Briticanna[8] "the American Staffordshire Terrier has been bred for a stable temperament and adapted for hunting rodents and other vermin, for pursuing game, and for farm work, taking advantage of the breed’s strength and courage."

American Bully[9]. No where does it say the breed was bred for fighting. In fact, Briticanna[10] specifically mentions there has been specific efforts taken in the past to breed away from their fighting roots, which directly in conflict with your statement that "they were bred to fight".

Having an ancestor from bull-baiting does not equal being bred to bull-bait. Unbiased6969 (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Pit bulls, as a group, were bred to fight. Nothing you've quoted there disproves that. Geogene (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Pit bulls, as a group, originated from the Bull and Terriers. You seem to be working backwards in time, rather than starting from the beginning and working forwards.

Also, the Staffordshire Terrier[11] "Since then, more than a hundred years of responsible breeding has transformed both breeds from brawlers to loyal family companions."

Sure seems as if the AKC is saying they were bred away from their roots and not bred for fighting there.... hmm. Unbiased6969 (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

AKC[12]American Staffordshire Terriers, by contrast, did not have the demands of the fighting pit to steer their evolution. Instead, their breeders focused on uniform appearance and soundness of body and mind.

Sure seems like the AKC is stating that the American Staffy was bred away from fighting... which last I checked is in direct conflict with your assertion that all "pit bulls" were bred for fighting. Unbiased6969 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

In regards to the original issue, the source is quite clearly referring to the American Pit Bull Terrier with that sentence. It does classify pit bulls into a 'fighting' category, but it also does that for Boxer dogs and the Shar pei. I wouldn't use their category as a source as they don't clarify how they determined it and there's not much to say from it besides 'pit bulls have been categorised as a fighting breed'. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Currently the Wiki Article reads: "Pit bulls were originally bred for bull baiting and dog fighting,[43] and because of this heritage, they often show a tendency to attack other animals, which contributes to public stigma against the breed.[44] Pit bull attacks are often perceived as taking place "without warning", possibly due to the type's fighting heritage, as fighting dogs that do not signal aggression may do better in the ring."

Well, which one is it, do they have a fighting heritage, or were they bred to fight? Spoiler, they have a heritage from fighting (Bull and Terrier) of which, the Bull Terrier, Boston Terrier, American Staffordshire, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and Miniature Bull Terrier, and the American Pitbull Terrier.

To break this down even clearer:

Pit bulls (generic term used to describe dogs that appear to be descendants of the Bull and Terrier) originated from the | Bull and Terrier, which was specifically bred to fight. However, the Staffy, Boston, Bull Terrier, and the many muts that exist between, were never specifically bred to fight, in fact, plenty of information can be found illustrating they were bred to have better temperament, which is linked above to my replies to another editor. The information about the Staffy and company's breeding is recognized as such by the AKC and the UKC, so there shouldn't even need to be a discussion on this topic to make edits for something that is noncontroversial.

If there is no further discussion on the topic I will make the edits.Unbiased6969 (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you should demonstrate consensus before making any such changes. Geogene (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The source isn't referring to the pit bull, but rather the Pit Bull Terrier. I've removed as the sentence's claims aren't supported by the source given the source wasn't referring to pit bulls. The rest of the paragraph is untouched. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, a good-faithed editor can clearly read the source and see that the source is referring to the APBT. Now, why would the wiki article state "Pit bulls were originally bred for bull baiting and dog fighting" if the source clearly states that the APBT was?

It is incorrect and makes the reader that all breeds identified under the "pit bull" umbrella were bred for bull baiting and dog fighting, which has been demonstrated with references to the UKC and AKC to be false of several of the breeds that fall under the "pit bull" umbrella.

To leave the article in its current state goes against Wikipedia's goal, which is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". because it presents the reader with misinformation that goes against mainstream knowledge.

The article would be most factually correct, and have a NPOV if it stated "pit bulls descend from Bull and Terriers, which were bred for bull-baiting and dog fighting. The subsequent breeds were then bred to hunt hogs and be family companions. As a result of their genetic history, pit bulls can have a fighting instinct, which makes it vital that pit bull puppies be socialized well to minimize the effect of that instinct.

That is the mainstream, academic, viewpoint that should be presented. The article as currently written has a POV that ignores the 100+ of years that happened after dog fighting and bull baiting lost its prevalence and makes the reader think that pit bulls are the fighting dogs they originated from. Unbiased6969 (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know who added it but I can imagine 'Pit Bull Terrier' being mistaken as 'pit bull'. The same sentence also used the term 'breed', which is erroneous as pit bull is just a categorisation of several breeds. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The misuse of pit bull and Pit bull terrier is common, and this Wikipedia page unfortunately does not do a great job differentiating the two terms, even though they have their own Wikipedia pages. It actually confuses the two terms multiple times within the article. Pit bull breed, could be used to describe the APBT, but often times, its just used by people ignorant to the topic who think that pit bulls are actually one breed. Unbiased6969 (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If you see any instances of the article referring to 'pit bull' as a breed you can change the wording. I've already done that for a few examples. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I cant make simple edits correcting demonstratably false information without gaining concensus first apparently. Even so, I would need to check source material to see if changing the term is sufficient, or if the source is actually talking about the ABPT, in which case it should be removed from the pit bulls page as its off topic and better addressed on the APBT page. This page should be specifically for information that pertains, at least multiple breeds that fall under the pitbull breed, but ideally all to stay relvent to the topic and avoid confusing the reader. Unbiased6969 (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus shouldn't need to be sought for noncontroversial, widely known facts. It is those that wish to dispute known facts to bring new evidence to be scrutinized to challenge if they disagree with the facts. A good-faith editor would not say "demonstrate consensus" to someone trying to correct to say "the earth is sphere" for the earth's wiki. Unbiased6969 (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much nothing in this WP-article is noncontroversial. If two or even one editor reverts you, the whatever is not uncontroversial (or at least not improvement) in their eyes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you would think that a topic about a breed would be uncontroversial, but unfortunately for those with an bias and are unable to remove themselves from it when making editing decisions, any information that goes against that is controversial, even if it's the mainstream viewpoint. This page has semi-protection for that very reason, because a lot of people rather use this page to push their agenda than to work towards wikipedia's goal of presenting the mainstream viewpoint of academia and reputable organizations on the topic. Also, are you insterested in looking over the heading topic and remdering your thought by chance? Gives us another set of eyes. Unbiased6969 (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Seems obvious that what should happen is it should be reworded to "Pit bull terriers were originally bred for bull baiting and dog fighting", because that is what is supported by the source _pbp 20:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's the best solution. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  Except that historically, it was the Bull Terrier that was originally bred for blood-sport by mixing the Old English Bull Dog with the Old English Terrier. The APBT did not exist until immigrants to the continents brought these dogs over and began breeding them for different purposes. Bull Terriers were originally bred for bull baiting, would be factually correct. However, to mention that bull terriers were originally bred for got fighting in the pit bulls wiki page, without also mentioning the subsequent breeding that took place over the last 100+ years, doesn't provide a NPOV. The reader is left with an incomplete history of the pit bull breeding tree that skews them towards a negative connotation. The NPOV, in my opinion is to recognize their history coming from a fighting ancestor, but then also recognize what the UKC and AKC already do, which is they have been bred away from those traits, but still can exhibit them, so socialization on young pit bull pups is important. Unbiased6969 (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  How about deleting "...and dog fighting" from the proposed sentence? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  The source, Bini et al. in Annals of Surgery [13] makes it clear that pit bulls (not "Pit Bull terriers") were bred for bull baiting and dog fighting. The complaint that it was referring to Pit Bull Terriers specifically is a different source, Gunter et al., which has since been removed. Don't confound two different sources. If you would like to restore the text sourced to Gunter et al. that said something to the effect that Pit Bull terriers (specifically) may attack other animals because of their dog fighting heritage, or whatever that specific line was, then that is okay with me. Geogene (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think the AKC and UKC are more reputable sources for breed information than a medical research paper. It appears to be behind a pay wall, but did they source where they obtained that information since it's outside their field of study and expertise?

  I wouldn't cite a mechanic on the best way to cut an incidion, just as i wouldn't cite a doctor on what part fails the most on a 2005 integra. Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think peer reviewed journal papers about dog bite injuries are more reliable than the AKC, an organization that exists to cater to the commercial interests of dog breeders. Geogene (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You mean the same breeders that breed the dogs that are the very subject of this wikipedia article? I think you're in the minority there. Most minds would trust a breeder on the history of their dog breed than a doctor... but hey, maybe I'm just way off based here. Anyone else care to give their judgement? Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the AKC is a commercial organization non-profit that advertises purebred dogs and advocates for the commercial interests of dog breeders. It would be like citing Boeing, or better yet, a Boeing lobbyist as the best source for whether the 737 Max is dangerous or not. Here's an example of an opposing advocacy group (HSUS) alleging that AKC lobbies for commercial dog breeding at the expense of aniaml welfare. [14]. Geogene (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You seem to have a very different view[15] of the AKC when you are choosing to accept their affliation when it work for your argument in this dif? Care to elaborate why AKC affiliation bring her any authority on the topic and now the AKC is just a organization that exists to cater to the commercial interest of breeders? Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  No, I didn't. And it might be better if you would stop personalizing content disputes. Geogene (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Red herring. The AKC may have terrible political view points, but their view points are not the topic. I am not arguing to rely on them for moral or legal opinion on animal law. The topic is whether they're an authority on the topic of dog breeds, which you seemed to support that they were in the diff provided above from a conversation with another user. Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  No, I said that Coile is an authority on dog breeds. And this is off-topic. Geogene (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Breed clubs are not the most reliable source for breed history. The Governing Council of the Cat Fancy has plagiarised Wikipedia twice and the Ragdoll club claims that the breed was born in a laboratory. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  So you are saying that because Cat Fancy plagiarized and exhibits claims then the AKC is not reputable? This seems to be an indictment on Cat Fancy that is irrelevant to the reputation or reliability of the AKC.

  One reasonable would not say, Doctor A peddled vaccine conspiracy theories, so doctors are not a reputable source when it comes to vaccine information.

  WP:DOGS/RS uses AKC to determine whether a breed is notable. They also do not list the AKC unreliable on that list. Furthermore, the one source that is determined to be reliable[16] by Cornell University, lists the AKC as reliable for breeding information. Unbiased6969 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also, not to get lost in this is the fact that I did not just source the AKC, but also Briticanna Pages for multiple breeds like this[17] where they state the same thing as the AKC, which is that they're ancestors were bred for fighting, but they have since been bred for a more stable temperament. Lastly, WP:DOGS/RS also states that

  • Kennel clubs are generally considered reliable sources for breed standards, number of registrations, member clubs, and information about themselves such as the conditions of accepting a breed into their registry.
  • Kennel clubs and breed registries can be used to add specific details about the breed’s history to an article but corroboration by secondary sources is encouraged.
  • Sources should be considered reliable. If in doubt, seek consensus.

  I adhered to their second point, which is encouraged, but not required, when I cited Briticanna as well. Its in their encyclopedia so a topic like their history shouldn't be controversial. Unbiased6969 (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  >One reasonable would not say, Doctor A peddled vaccine conspiracy theories, so doctors are not a reputable source when it comes to vaccine information.

  No, but it's reasonable to say that therefore a lone doctor's opinion is not inherently reliable.

  >WP:DOGS/RS uses AKC to determine whether a breed is notable.

  That's not policy and that's just for recognition.

  >Furthermore, the one source that is determined to be reliable[16] by Cornell University

  From the top of that document.

  >No endorsement is intended nor implied by listing websites here.

  Seems like the opposite to me.

  >Kennel clubs and breed registries can be used to add specific details about the breed’s history to an article but corroboration by secondary sources is encouraged.

  Yes, they're a primary source that should not be relied on when reliable secondary sources exist for any claims about the history. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, which is to day Cat Fancy is not reliable. However, it says nothing about the AKC. Its also title recommended sources, so just making it on that list says something about the source. I personally wouldn't some things on a recommended list that shares my name it it wasn't quality. I cant speak for the author, but I can speculate that its likely that disclaimer is meant to avoid making it appear the university is endorsing a source. The secondary sources are the Britannica pages for the various breeds i mentioned. They also say the same thing about the various breeds that pit bulls encompass. Pit bulls were bred from fighting dogs, not bred for fighting. There is no mass effort by breeders to breed them for fighting, and hasnt for many many years. Unbiased6969 (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry I missed this. I don't believe omitting the dogs fighting ancestors would benefit the reader. Just as I also don't believe it benefits the reader to omit the last 100+ years of breeding the breeds have went through either. A NPOV, in my opinion, would be to mention both. They started were started from the ancestors of dog/bull fighting and have been breed to be family dogs. However, some can exhibit the former traits, so socialization of pups is important to avoid those traits. Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Amid all the arguing about kennel clubs, I feel like we've lost track of the question of how to write this sentence. Aside from a single editor, I'm not seeing much interest in expanding the amount of text to cover the historical progression of breeding with respect to tendency to fight, but maybe other editors are interested. If not, that brings us back to the sentence "Pit bulls were originally bred for bull baiting and dog fighting." I'm seeing arguments both for and against changing it to "Pit bull terriers", and for and against including "dog fighting" in addition to "bull baiting". How do we decide this? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I already removed the source and statement in regards to the pit bull terrier issue. The current sentence is based on another source. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  OK, thanks. So I think that means we should stick with just saying "Pit bulls". Is there still a reason to remove the part about "dog fighting"? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm actually not sure this source says pit bulls were bred for bull-baiting. It's a paywalled source so I cannot copypaste the specific phrase but it says they were descended from 'butcher's dog' which was developed for bull-baiting.

  It does say the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and American Pit Bull Terrier are descended from fighting dogs used in Staffordshire shortly after the bull-baiting ban. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ditto on the pay wall issue. However, it would be inaccurate for that source to say it as shown by both AKC and Britannica for several of the breeds that fall under the term pit bull. There is sufficient sources available to refute any claim they were bred for fighting because they weren't. That breeding stopped over 100 years ago and they have been bred for other purposes now. I'm on mobile so I can't link sources, but they're above. Unbiased6969 (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  As an alternative approach, how about changing the sentence to: ""Pit bulls were originally developed from dogs that were bred for bull baiting and dog fighting."? I think that might capture the distinctions that editors are looking for. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think that'd be fine, the source itself doesn't seem to claim modern breeds were bred for fighting. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I would say it would be a much better improvement than currently exists and reflects accuracy. Unbiased6969 (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Did you want to update the article with that, or would you rather I do it. Thank you and Traumnovelle for your discussion. Unbiased6969 (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  You can do it yourself. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is this the paywall source you wanted? [18] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, bit of an odd place for it to be hosted. Under the "Characteristics of the Pit Bull Breed" heading is where it talks about the pit bull. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  And reading what it says there, I think the revised sentence reflects the source quite well. Thanks, everyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

References