Talk:Pit bull

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2024

The third paragraph under "Breed-specific legislation" includes the clause "and the American city of Miami" in a list of jurisdictions with "pit bull" bans, but this ban was removed in 2023. I recommend this part of the sentence be removed. (one source for info on this: https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/florida-law-lifts-ban-on-pit-bulls-in-miami-dade-county-17935093#:~:text=It's%20the%20first%20time%20since,7%2Dyear%2Dold%20girl.) Slipagyp (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Done Traumnovelle (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Slipagyp (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Nature Study in Staffordshire Terriers not being aggressive

Hi,

Regarding this edit and reversion, the edit comment given was: says Staffordshire Bull Terrier, not pit bulls. Also, it's a Primary study.

I agree that it says "Staffordshire Bull Terrier", which is one of the 4 breeds generally lumped into "Pit Bull", but this is a Nature paper, so I don't know how much more primary you can get. The actual quote from the paper is:

"To be noted, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which is one of the restricted breeds, for example, in Ireland2, was not among the most aggressive breeds in this study."

Perhaps the other editor was confused about the Ireland citation, thinking it to be the source for the "not aggressive" fact, where it was only the source for the fact that Staffordshire Bull Terriers are a highly restricted breed. This study itself is the source for SBT's not being particularly aggressive. The fact that the study notes the contrast between the restrictions and the aggressiveness is what makes it worthy of inclusion and faithful to the intention of the paper's authors.

May I therefore propose to reinsert the study with the fact, but we can clearly state in the text that this source is discussing Staffordshire Bull Terriers? Thank you. Louiedog (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, also, this study also mentions Pit Bull Terriers, saying:

“ The relatively average C-BARQ scores for stranger-directed aggression found among Pit Bull Terriers (Fig. 3A) were inconsistent with their universal reputation as a ‘dangerous breed’ and their reported involvement in dog bite-related fatalities (Sacks et al., 1996). In our survey, nearly 7% of Pit Bull owners indicated that their dogs had bitten or attempted to bite an unfamiliar person in the recent past, somewhat higher than the overall average (4.7%), while 22% reported bites directed at other dogs. This pattern is consistent with the view that this breed has been selectively bred for aggression toward other dogs rather than humans (Lockwood, 1995). It should be emphasized, however, that while the prevalence of human-directed bites or bite attempts among Pit Bull Terriers may be only slightly above average, the severity of their attacks is probably affected by other traits (e.g., the size and strength of the breed, its reputed failure to give warning signs, and its reported tenacity when attacking) that may also have been selected for in the development of this “fighting” breed." ”

and also that Pit Bulls scored higher than average for aggression directed at unfamiliar dogs:

"Some breeds scored higher than average for aggression directed toward both humans and dogs (e.g., Chihuahuas and Dachshunds) while other breeds scored high only for specific targets (e.g., dog-directed aggression among Akitas and Pit Bull Terrier".

I'd like to find a place for this information in the article as well.

I don't believe I'm confused. As I said, it is a WP:PRIMARY source making a claim about Staffordshire Bull Terriers, not pit bulls. I am aware that Staffordshire Bull Terriers are a type of pit bull, are you aware that not all pit bulls are Staffordshire Bull Terriers? Also, the text you added, Regardless, studies on breed aggression do not place Pit Bulls among the more aggressive breeds seemed to go beyond the source, which said To be noted, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which is one of the restricted breeds, for example, in Ireland, was not among the most aggressive breeds in this study. There should be a WP:SECONDARY source for that, preferably a literature review.

The C-BARQ study is another primary source, and it still acknowledges that Pit Bull Terriers are prone to catastrophic mauling. It should be emphasized, however, that while the prevalence of human-directed bites or bite attempts among Pit Bull Terriers may be only slightly above average, the severity of their attacks is probably affected by other traits (e.g., the size and strength of the breed, its reputed failure to give warning signs, and its reported tenacity when attacking) that may also have been selected for in the development of this “fighting” breed." Geogene (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, sounds like we're in agreement. The question was is you had any objection to my proposed revised text?--Louiedog (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Since, there's been no response here, I've gone ahead and done a bit of a rewrite, breaking off the bite/aggression topics into their own sections, leaving a summary at the top. I have summarized the results of the 2008 Duffy paper and mentioned the 2021 Mikkola paper, clearly stating that they had only made statements about Staffordshire Terriers, as per your comment. Let me know if you find anything you feel I haven't represented faithfully in my edits.Louiedog (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What I mean is, since it says Staffordshire Bull Terrier, not Pit Bull, it shouldn't be in this article. There's a Staffordshire Bull Terrier article it could be added to. Geogene (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've got 3 main things to bring up going forwards:

1. I think the 2021 Mikkola paper's bit about SBT's is at least a bit relevant here, but I'm willing to forego it on the argument that it's a bit too tangential for our main topic in the spirit of compromise.

2. That leads to the next issue to be resolved - how to break the article by sections. Per your edit comment that this was "burying the controversy", I wanted to settle that concern first.

To my mind, the purpose of a lede is to introduce and define the subject, and summarize the gist of the detail that appears below. My issue with the now-current version of the page is that it's putting a lot of detail (201 words out of 388) on the issue of the debate over aggression, exact percentages of bites, consequences for insurance while ignoring the entire history section of the article. All that needs to remain is a high-level summary of dog bites, aggression, laws, and insurance, while specifics can be relegated to their own sections. Obviously, I liked the wording I had before:

Pit bull–type dogs have a controversial reputation as pets internationally, due to their history in dog fighting, the number of high-profile attacks documented in the media over decades, and their proclivity to latching on while biting. Proponents of the type and advocates of regulation have engaged in a highly contentious nature-versus-nurture debate over whether aggressive tendencies in pit bulls may be appropriately attributed to owners' poor care for and competency to handle the dog or inherent qualities owing to their breeding for fighting purposes. As a result of their reputation, Pit Bulls are often a target for breed-specific legislation, though the evidence for their being any more dangerous or aggressive than other breeds has been mixed and is contested.

but I'm open to any revision you'd want to propose.

3. Lastly, it seems absolutely worth mentioning that the 2018 Duffy paper clearly delineates dog aggression by target: strangers, other dogs, owners, and that while some dogs are just aggressive in all of the above targets, Duffy et al. have concluded that Pit Bills have a notably higher level of aggression when directed at other dogs. I'd also like to mention that Pit Bulls were also shown to be less aggressive than other breeds towards their owners (as it might go a far way to explain some of the pro-Pit Bull/anti Pit Bull debate and why people seem so invested in it. Obviously, this is my own speculation and not scholarly enough to be included).

Thanks for continuing to read posts and work with me towards improving the article to something we can both be reasonably satisfied with. Louiedog (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, previously other editors have not allowed sources in this article that are about specific individual pit bull breeds, and I generally agree with that convention. Also, I'm still opposed to adding primary studies about perceived breed aggression, especially when those are self-reported by dog owners.

The medical journal literature reviews that say that pit bulls kill the most people of any type of dog, and inflict the most catastrophic damage, are the best sources in this article, and I do not consider any lead section that doesn't mention that acceptable. Geogene (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

1. On including Duffy:

Also, I'm still opposed to adding primary studies about perceived breed aggression, especially when those are self-reported by dog owners.

We're already citing the Duffy paper in the version that's been allowed to stand and we've got another at least dozen of primary sources already in the article. Overall, the article does not overrely on primary sources. Our personal judgement about methodology is not generally criteria for inclusion, but we could specifically highlight the methodology by mentioning it in the text (e.g. "Based on C-BARQ surveys filled out by dog owners...").

2. How about just adding that to mine and calling it a day: "Medical journal literature reviews state that pit bulls kill the most people of any type of dog, and inflict the most catastrophic damage.[source1][source2]" and then later in the article we cite more details about aggression and bites, in their own sections?

3. How about my suggestion here? We're already using the Duffy source to support that Pit Bulls are more aggressive towards other dogs. How about including the additional information about towards strangers and owners? Again, we could qualify by stating that all three conclusions come from surveys of owners and kennels. Louiedog (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Okay 2. Maybe not that literal text (I haven't looked at the relevant sources in a while, and want to make sure it's accurate) but something like it. 3. Yes, that sounds good with qualifications wherever we're using Duffy. Geogene (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Very good, what do you propose for #2, in that case? I'd like to get to some final wording that we can include. Louiedog (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I want something like While some studies have argued that pit bull–type dogs are 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 only 6% of pet dogs. Some insurance companies will not cover pit bulls (along with Rottweilers and wolf hybrids) because these particular dogs cause a disproportionate rate of bite incidents. Dog bite severity varies by the breed of dog, and studies have found that pit bull–type dogs have both a high rate of reported bites and a high rate of severe injuries, compared to other non–pit bull–type dogs. to remain in the lead. You kept removing it for some reason. Geogene (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"Independent Organizations have published statistics based on hospital...only 6% of pet dogs" is not doing the reader any good. The 6% garbage "statistic" comes from dogsbite.org and animals24/7.org, both have been deemed unreliable[1] by WP:RS. There is no good argument to include data from sourced from unreliable sources.

WP:USEBYOTHERS is not a valid reason as it states "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims." WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, states "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content".

It stands to reason that if WP:RS already concluded that the source[2] for the ..."more than half...despite 6% of population" "statistic" is unreliable, then others quoting that statistic just for the sake of quoting it, without showing additional evidence to back it up, then it is unreliable and should be removed from the article. Unbiased6969 (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I know that you have some kind of vendetta against Dogsbite.org, because we've already had numerous unproductive discussions about it. Unfortunately for your position, these numbers are being cited in quality papers, such as Dog Bites in the United States from 1971 to 2018: A Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature by Bailey et al. 2020, in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, who say, Pit bull-type and German Shepherd breeds are consistently implicated for causing the most serious injuries to patients in the United States across heterogeneous populations, and this remained consistent across multiple decades....Furthermore, our data and others reinforce the suggestion that Pit Bull--type breeds have been responsible for a large subset of dog-associated maulings and fatalities over the past three decades. Citing a number of journal papers and not just Dogsbite.org (which is largely a distraction since no one is calling for citing Dogsbite.org directly in Wikipedia at this time). Geogene (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Red herring. All of these reference their "data". None of them validate it. Dogsbite.org data is still unreliable.

The data being questioned is their breed demographics and share of dog fatalities. None of these sources touch on either. Show me a study on breed data that shows the gen pop close to 6% for all pit bull type dogs. Then show me a study showing they're responsible for 60% of dog fatalities.

Until then, context matters. Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I need a statement in the lead that respects NPOV by recognizing the scientific consensus that pitbulls are among the most dangerous breeds of dog, in the sense that they cause most bites, fatalities, and the most severe damage. The claim that they make up 6% of the dog population is less important. Are you saying that you could play ball with that? Geogene (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no scientific consensus that they are the most dangerous breeds of dogs. One could argue that they are among the most capable of causing serious harm. The data seems to suggest that. However, that doesn't translate to being the most dangerous. Just because one dude is a massive 280lb MMA fighter doesn't make him an inherit threat. I hope that helps draw the distinction. You are jumping to conclusions that no one made with data that doesn't conclude that. Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I will also caveat that there is a valid discussion among breed identification by medical staff that is not being addressed for simplicity of the argument. But to achieve NPOV, any statement of the above should also disclose that the data collection methodologies have been shown to be unreliable in studies. Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No. Not going to use WP:PRIMARY studies that claim breeds are hard to indentify to "debunk" higher quality WP:SECONDARY sources in the medical journals. Geogene (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The medical journals are gold standard source for medical related injuries. No question. However, if the data collection methods that were used were through visual identification, then there is enough data[3][4] out there to question the reliability of the breed id reliability of said data. Human medical data is good for injury related information. Veterinary medical data is good for questioning whether breeds can be determined reliably through visual identification.

A true NPOV of the topic would be something like: Pit bull dogs have been shown to cause disproportionate amounts of serious medical injuries. However, these studies relied upon breed identification, which has been shown to be unreliable.

The reader can the research both and make their own determination. Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm not going to agree to using a vet school website dated 2016 to attempt to discredit a secondary literature review from 2020. That's OR. Geogene (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I know. I think we interacted enough for me to know that. However, you have no reasons, which is why none are listed. 2016 doesn't matter, there hasn't been any new data published about breed identification reliability, so its still the most recent academic research out there. If there is, please post it. The 2020 data isn't about breed identification reliability, but uses it as a method within its. Being that the most updated research on using breed identification shows its unreliable, that's a valid criticism of the 2020 study you posted. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid argument. Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, so are you staying it can't be included because it mentions one specific breed and not "pit bulls" in general?

I actually agree. This page should be about information specific to "pit bulls". So, should be cleanse the article of all mention of specific breeds rather than the umbrella term? If so, there are some breed restrictions that should be removed as they don't apply to "pit bulls"... Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Are we in agreement Geogene, or does this rule only apply to citations that make a pitbull type breed look good? Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The argumentative editor is pushing viewpoints that are off-topic for this webpage and harassing other editors. Asserting that "breed identification is unreliable" is beside the point. Even if that catchphrase were true, it wouldn't preclude using the available reliable sources that report breed specific data, statistics and information. We should not even consider using conclusions of alleged studies where "shelter workers made mistakes of identifying breeds in a small sampling of dogs, mostly mixed breeds" to make broad and sweeping assumptions that all other sources everywhere and at any time cannot possibly know actual breeds and that their data must certainly be wrong. Such insistences by Unbiased6969 are irrational and fallacious arguments. Wikianon3770617 (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Take it to the incident board if you have an issue. Not the place for it. Keep it on topic of the talk page please. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Totally on topic. You brought up unreliability of visual breed identification in this thread as an argument to support your viewpoints. 7 times. The subject is already covered elsewhere in the article, in context. However, that opinion is not widely accepted, per sources. Because of that, it is not necessary for users to evaluate every source through the lens of "visual breed id is unreliable, and they mention breed, so it must have been visual, and they must therefore be unreliable, and so we can't use that source". That is utterly ridiculous. Wikianon3770617 (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Your WP:ASPERSIONS are off topic and better addressed on another forum. Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This topic is not as controversial as it is in public opinon.

I think the primary debate friction is a lack of understanding of what a dog breed is, basic genetics, and basic statistics. A dog breed is a collection of traits. We arbitrarily classify certain sets of traits and call them dog breeds.

If any trait is actively selected for it will be more pronounced. However, if a trait is not selected for, it will fade out and be decided by natural selection. Likewise, if a trait is actively selected against, it will also of course fade out. See the Dog Breeding wiki for more.

A trait that was once selected for in the late 1800s but no longer is, it is not going to remain present 200 years later. Furthermore, responsible and licensed dog breeders actively breed out aggression in all large dogs.

It is true that there are backyard breeders which actively do breed aggression into pit bull type dogs, but that could be done for any breed of dog, they just choose pit bulls because of human related reasons. It is nothing inherent to pit bulls. And we know this because aggression is not a defined trait for any of the pit bull type breeds. So for example, a dog with the traits: Muscular neck, short coat, flat skull and aggression is a pit bull terrier. A dog with the traits Muscular neck, short coat, flat skull, and meek is also a pit bull terrier. Depending on where you get your pit bull, from a licensed breeder or a backyard breeder you may have an aggressive pit bull or a meek pit bull. It's possible, if not probable, that there are more aggressive pit bulls than other breeds because of how pit bull type dogs are the breed of choice for backyard breeders intentionally breeding aggression into their dogs.

Now that you are armed with this knowledge, it shouldn't be surprising that it is global scientific consensus that breed specific legislation is not effective.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The quality research generally lies in the effectiveness of breed specific legislation realm because that is where the money is being spent.

So now that i have addressed what a dog breed is, basic genetics, there's also a lack of understanding of basic statistics that probably contributes to most anti-pit bull opinions. I've seen various verbiage, but the statistic cited generally goes like this

"Pit bulls and pit bull mixes make up 20-60% of all dog attacks. While being 6% of the dog population."

There is absolutely nothing in this statistic that indicates genetic predisposition to harm. All it indicates is that there is an external influence causing pit bulls to be overrepresented. Insurance companies only care about the probabilities and are not interested in a cause or a solution so they will adjust rates appropriately or refuse to ensure. It’s natural for humans (and all mammals really) to have pattern recognition that results in fear, and when fear is involved all rationale tends to go out the window even for the otherwise sharpest of minds.

There is limited research on why the stat is the way it is, and what does exist is generally low quality or contaminated by interest groups. But it could be because low income families disproportionately represent pit bull owners, issues with the data collection / falsely labeling an offending dog a pit bull, backyard dog breeders (or dog fighters) flooding the dog population with aggressive pit bulls, the breed being the dog of choice for violent people and violent people's dogs are also violent, or perhaps also people who want a dog to train to be aggressive for guard dog purposes choose pit bulls because of their reputation and this leads to more bites. Personally I do not know, I think more quality research is needed to reach such a determination. Nevertheless, this is what any debate should be over and should include the nuances I have outlined in this topic. It's hardly a nature versus nurture debate like this wikipedia article suggests. EVOSexybeast (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

A trait that was once selected for in the late 1800s but no longer is, it is not going to remain present 200 years later. The founder effect implies otherwise. For example, here is an article [5] about a deleterious genetic problem in Clumber spaniels that has persisted from the founding of the breed in the 1700's up to today. Also, since illegal dog fighting is still very common, presumably some pit bulls are still being intentionally bred for aggression.

I don't intend to have a "debate" on this here, but if the dog breeding article says anything contrary to this, it is wrong. Geogene (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Quite right that our arguments such as "There is absolutely nothing in this statistic that indicates genetic predisposition to harm. All it indicates is that there is an external influence causing pit bulls to be overrepresented." are Original research and can't really be posted in this article but if EVOSexybeast has proposals for inclusion of sources that make those arguments and those sources are of good quality, those should be included. Louiedog (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Pit bull type dogs are a large collection of diverse breeds and do not have a small founder population, heck or hardly even a shared founder population.

The average age of onset for Clumber Spaniels with degenerative myelopathy is approximately nine years of age which makes it so that it’s difficult for breeders to select out before they breed. Aggression does not have this same disadvantage, and aggression is not defined by a single autosomal recessive gene like the SOD1 gene is for the source of the Clumber Spaniels defect. This is conjecture on your part with no evidence in support and is a plain rejection of modern genetics.

“Also, since illegal dog fighting is still very common, presumably some pit bulls are still being intentionally bred for aggression.”

Of course, I said that in my comment. It’s not a nature versus nurture debate, both sides of the pit bull debate are generally wrong in the most common arguments. I also would not get a pit bull type puppy (or german shepherd) from a shelter, as I know backyard breeders choose the breed to breed aggression into them and I won’t know who the breeder was. I always ask a breeder what steps they take to breed out aggression for any large dog.

There is higher quality and growing research about non-breed specific legislation and its effectiveness and I am working on a section for this article for it as I think this article lacks in that area. EVOSexybeast (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure seems like a lot of opinion and speculation in a comment and not much source on the actual topic at hand. You grabbed "founder effect" and slapped it in there like it provided anything meaningful. Dog and strange human/dog aggression at the genetic level would be exist in dogs pre-domestication from wolves. Its something that every breed has, not just one specific. In fact...

"Our findings show that canine fear and aggression that are directed toward strange humans or other dogs share variation that was present prior to the creation of dog breeds."[6]

So the attempt to use the founder effect to single-out a single dog breed for aggression is mute.

I agree, there is no need to debate this, unless someone has genetic studies showing otherwise. Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, those who are objective about the topic, there is nothing controversial. The academic consensus widely believes that environmental factors likely play a role in individual dogs attacking, and not genetics. However, much like vaccines are widely known by the academic community to not cause autism, you have conspiracy theorist that cling onto blog and bogus data that reaffirms their belief that they're dangerous.

Additionally, I wouldn't waste much time with this stat: "60% of all dog attacks despite 6% of population" garbage stats as if its fact. All you need to do to debunk that is go to the WP:RS archive[7] to see that its source has been deemed unreliable. Its garbage and not worth assuming is fact for sake of argument.

Lastly, as you may know already. There are individuals on this page that subscribe to the latter of my before mentioned. They exist solely on this page to WP:STONEWALL. So welcome to the pit bulls page, I hope you have better luck improving this page that others in the past. Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, the ultimate question is just sourcing. We can argue forever, but what we need to do is evaluate which sources are quality and relevant enough for inclusion and only convey that those stay. In that vein, what is the source of the "60% of dog attacks despite 6% of population"? The cited sources seem to the print book "Pit Bulls for dummies" that I can't check and a Time Magazine article that's citing a The Daily Beast article that's gone 404 and I can't bring up any source associated with this "Merritt Clifton", so this fact might need to be retired, unless we can find the original source of this claim. Louiedog (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Louiedog, Daily Beast archive is easily found. To find Clifton content, perform site-specific searches like "6%" or "census" where I see several sources to satisfy your curiosity. Wikianon3770617 (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The claim should at the very least be attributed given it is attributed in the Time magazine source. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The sources have already been evaluated. WP:RS and WP:DOGS have already concluded[8] that these websites's "data" is not reliable. I have the Dummies for book, and it adds nothing but citing the "data" from animals24-7 and dogsbite.org. In fact, the book calls them a scientific website. However, they are self-published blogs and hold no background in science, and who represent fringe theories. Every source that cites them just regurgitates their misinformation without adding any credibility.

The fact Time mentions them doesn't give them reliability, but only diminishes Times's reputation for reliability given they didn't do any fact checking before citing. WP:USEBYOTHERS states that "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims".

I don't see why the article should include WP:USEBYOTHERS to represent minority claims, with the sole reason is outside citation. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." Time is an otherwise reliable source, the dog bites topic is not related to the principal topic of its publications, so if the full context of WP:USEBYOTHERS is adhered to, and you add WP:CONTEXTMATTERS's part about using information provided in passing by otherwise reputable sources, then there is sufficient reason to not mention it in the article.

WP:DETCON states that the quality of the arguments determine consensus. I have not seen anymore of an argument for including other that just stating WP:USEBYOTHERS and saying Times is reputable therefore the source is. However, that argument lacks applying the full policy and fails to factor other policies as it mentions within it. Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Care to share an image of that page of the book so the rest of us can also read it, unfiltered? Wikianon3770617 (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

No, doing so would violate WP:CV. Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

"Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." Care to explain how that applies here? Geogene (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I will try to explain it further. What this guideline/policy is saying is that when an otherwise reliable sources is using a source in its publication, which said information does not belong to what that publications primary topics area, then it may not be reliable. Instead, editors should go to sources that primarily discuss the topic at hand.

So for example. Time does not primarily publish about dog bites or attacks, but are otherwise reputable. However, they cite a source like dogsbite or animals24-7. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states that the information cited by Time may not be reliable, so editor's should go to sources that primarily publish within that topic.

Now before you say "may not be"... yes. Because some sources cited are reputable. However, the community already determined that the source cited was not reputable[9]. So when you take WP:RS guidelines in totality rather than picking one, its clear that using Time's citation of animals24-7 or dogsbite.org is not reliable. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "may not be". Regarding the community already determined that the source cited was not reputable. I don't think that one discussion at RSNB that didn't even take USEBYOTHERS into account is binding. It's not as if the source has been permanently banned from Wikipedia, although you appear to believe that it is. Geogene (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Then I encourage you to bring it up with WP:RS if you feel differently and bring up WP:USEBYOTHERS and see if that changes the outcome. I suspect it won't but definitely don't think its a bad idea to do so. However, as it stands now, they were determined to be unreliable and when the all of WP:RS is applied. Its clear that their allowance in the article is problematic.

Unless you have a better argument as to why it isn't? Trying to have a honest dicussion about it before requesting admin edits. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

And why would I have to do that? Why don't you go to RSNB and see if your interpretation holds water? Geogene (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus on the sources was already reached. It is not me challenged that. An admin will decide the quality of the arguments here before making a determination. I am not concerned with the past consensus and feel it was correct. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The source certainly isn't reliable but the paper referencing it (although I think the quality of the paper is quite low after reading it) is reliable enough to include it there.

I have many issues with the source but from a policy perspective I don't believe there is any reason to oppose it. It is an article published in a reputable journal without any published criticism (at least that I am aware of).

I still think attribution should at least be included or mention that it is not an official nor medical estimate. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There are no published criticism because it exists within a medical journal where the focus and expertise is on the medical data. Not dog facts.

Had this been reviewed in the Veterinary Medicine Journals, then it certainly would have received some criticisms as not one study published by them has supported the conclusions made in it.

We now arguing that medical journals are reliable sources for breed related data over veterinary journals. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have veterinary journals that say that the medical journals are wrong? You haven't presented any. Geogene (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would a Veterinary Journal critique a Medical Journal? In what world would that be something reasonable. Veterinary Journals have publish multiple times addressing topics breed's role, or lack there of, in aggression.

You're building a strawman fallacy trying to have someone show a journal addressing another journal. That isn't what they do. They publish their own data. Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so you don't have any evidence that there's this imagined veterinary POV that conflicts with the published views in medical journals. Geogene (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Never claimed that. There are LOTS. I can work on compiling all them tonight. Here[10] is a quick one before I go eat. Unbiased6969 (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That actually supports what my sources are saying: n a range of studies, the breeds found to be highly represented in biting incidents were German Shepherd Dog, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,50 mixed breed,1,4,6,8,10,11,12, 19,17, 20,50 pit bull type,5,9,13,16, 21,20,22,23,24,25,26,27 Rottweiler,15, 18,22,24, 25, 28 Jack Russell Terrier,21,25,26 and others (Chow Chow,7,23 Spaniel,14,26 Collie,3,29 Saint Bernard,20 and Labrador Retriever2 ). If you consider only the much smaller number of cases that resulted in very severe injuries or fatalities,21,23 pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified. It acknowledges that pit bulls are frequent offenders in severe attacks, but tries to frame it in alternative fashion. Those references are going to helpful to cross check against my list of papers, thanks. Geogene (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Cherry pick what you want, but all those were discredited by this... "The pit bull type is particularly ambiguous as a “breed” encompassing a range of pedigree breeds, informal types and appearances that cannot be Page 3 of 8 reliably identified. Visual determination of dog breed is known to not always be reliable."

Basically saying, all that data that relied upon visual identification is unreliable...

That's the point of it, to discredit the data out there because it was obtained using methodology that is widely known to be flawed.

I have compiled a list of other studies determining visual identification to be unreliable and will post tomorrow. Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 October 2024

Change "proclivity to latching on" to "proclivity to latch on". Change "that it will no longer cover" to "that it would no longer cover". This article mixes American English and British English spellings. It mostly covers the United States but then uses British spellings like recognise, organise, organisation, criminalising, labelled. Wikianon3770617 (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. The article's date format is mdy, so I standardized to American spellings. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Khan et al., Journal of Craniomaxillofacial Trauma, 2019

Source quote: The data showed that compared to other dog breeds, pit bull terriers inflicted more complex wounds, were often unprovoked, and went off property to attack....From our data bank, we found the predominant breed (as identified by the owner, witnesses, animal encounter documents, and so on) was the pit bull type of dog....This is most likely under-reported, owing to the challenges cited earlier regarding confirmation on the part of some owners who demurred or resisted identification of the breeds of their dogs. So that's an interesting tidbit, pit bull attack rates may be underreported because dog owners don't want to admit that their dog is a pit bull after it has attacked someone, for reasons that seem readily apparent. But how does this result compare with the existing literature? They continue: This tendency appears to hold true in most medical reports except when pit bulls have been banned the reporting health care system's regional jurisidiction (Also interesting, doesn't that imply that when BSL is implemented, the pit bulls are apparently re-labelled as some other breed?) They continue: The most comprehensive nonmedical data bank, which includes all media and police reports in the United States for nearly a 20-year span, lists pit bulls as the leading perpetrator of bites, mauling events, and deaths. The "nonmedical data bank" in question is Merritt Clifton of animals24-7 dot org. If it's good enough for medical journals, why isn't it good enough for Wikipedia? per USEBYOTHERS? Geogene (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I was actually just looking for the Merritt Clifton source cited in Time Magazine and it's 404. I google around and cannot find it anywhere. Unless you have better luck locating it, we're going to have to discontinue it as a reference, since it can't be verified. Louiedog (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. Geogene (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think WP:SOURCEACCESS is their argument. But instead WP:VNOT? It may have existed at one time, but there is no longer any way to verify the source, paywall or not. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't delete sources just because they're not available online. Geogene (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That isn't WP:SOURCEACCESS. If there is no way of verifying a source, even in libraries/museums, then it falls under WP:VNOT.

Just an FYI. If it can't be found here[11], then I think there is a real good argument for WP:VNOT. Seems Time has a library of their own publications online.

If it can, then the source link should probably be updated. One doesn't need to argue for WP:VNOT to get Time removed. There is a more than sufficient argument about the reliability of its citation within the article. Unbiased6969 (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The Time article is here. [12]. Geogene (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies. The link that is 404 is the hyperlink included within Time. The yeah, I would say that is irrelevant because the same claims can still be found on their websites, broken URL or not. Hyperlinks can change, and that's irrelevant. So its clear what they were citing. I agree not to remove it because of that. Unbiased6969 (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:USEBYOTHERS which says "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims." & then WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is why.

Medical journals, professionals are not primarily discussing the topic of dog populations demographics, dog attacks, breed types, or the efficiency of BSL policies. Its outside their domain.

They are certainly in the topic of discussing medical injuries resulting from dog attacks, long term impacts from injuries, and etc. But they are not authoritative figure when it comes to what kind of dog it was or how much of a % a dog breed represents of the total dog population.

They are simply citing another source in passing to present their data. Now, does that mean that their source cited is not reliable? Of course not, that source then needs to be evaluated to determine reliability. As such was done here[13]. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This looks to me like Wikilawyering to try to exclude any and all medical sources that discuss which types of dogs are causing the worst injuries. I don't think that's going to lead to NPOV content. Geogene (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Nope, just a good-faith discussion on the merits of a source reliability using WP Guidelines. If a reliable source cannot be found to support a claim, then it shouldn't be included within an article. WP:5P2 states "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person." Removing unreliable sources achieves more of a NPOV than including them to represent controversial view just for the sake of presenting it. Unbiased6969 (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Except that Time magazine is reliable, and so are reputable peer reviewed journals. Geogene (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

"Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable"

Time / Medical Journals are otherwise reliable, presenting information that is not related to its principal topic of publication. I don't know how to make it more clear, so we will have to let others/admins weigh the strengths of our arguments and agree to let this go. Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• This source is clearly reliable and is WP:DUE for this article. The claims it is not are so sophistic as to be almost incomprehensible. Yes, a medical paper can make reliable claims about dogs and injuries caused by dogs. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Tsokos et al., "Extensive and Mutilating Craniofacial Trauma Involving Defleshing and Decapitation". In American Journal of Forensic Medical Pathology, 2007

Source quote: "Pit bull-type" dogs refers to a variety of breeds including the bull terrier....These dogs seem to be a particular problem compared with other breeds as they tend not to make threatening gestures, such as snarling or baring of teeth, prior to attacking and so there may be no warning of impending aggressive behavior....Once attached, they also continue to grind their premolars and molars into tissues while holding on with their canine teeth causing greater amounts of soft-tissue injuries than other breeds. Ninety-four percent of pit bull attacks were unprovoked in one study of nonfatal dog bites, compared with 46% of cases overall. Combining all of these features with aggressive personalities and relatively larger sizes makes them highly dangerous to children. So, another journal paper that says that pit bulls are known to inflict more injuries than other breeds of dog. Are we going to try to keep this one out of the article, too? Geogene (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

We absolutely shouldn't try to keep this out. It should be included.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

RSNB Thread opened

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_medical_literature_for_claims_about_relative_incidence_of_dog_attacks_by_breed. I hope this helps. Geogene (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)