Talk:American Pit Bull Terrier/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Law

The current section on "Law" appears to be a random assortment of unassociated paragraphs. How about replacing it with the following footnoted and sourced text copied from the referenced Pit Bull and Breed-specific legislation pages; the following text was adapted from the Pit Bull article:

A large number of jurisdictions have enacted breed-specific legislation (BSL) in response to a number of well-publicized incidents involving APBTs; some government organizations such as the United States Army[28] and Marine Corps[29] have taken administrative action as well. These actions range from outright bans on the possession of APBTs to restrictions and conditions on ownership, and often establish a legal presumption that an APBT is prima facie a legally "dangerous" or "vicious" dog. In response, some state-level governments in the United States have prohibited or restricted the ability of municipal governments within those states to enact breed-specific legislation, though these prohibitions on breed-specific legislation do not affect military installations located within these states.[31] It is now generally settled in case law that jurisdictions in the United States and Canada have the right to enact breed-specific legislation; however, the appropriateness and effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing dog bite fatalities is disputed.[31] One point of view is that APBTs are a public safety issue that merits actions such as banning ownership, mandatory spay/neuter for all pit bulls, mandatory microchip implants and liability insurance, or prohibiting people convicted of a felony from owning pit bulls.[32][33] Another point of view is that comprehensive "dog bite" legislation, coupled with better consumer education and legally mandating responsible pet keeping practices, is a better solution to the problem of dangerous dogs that breed-specific legislation.[34][35] A third point of view is that breed-specific legislation should not ban breeds entirely but should strictly regulate the conditions under which specific breeds could be owned, e.g., forbidding certain classes of individuals from owning them, specifying public areas from which they would be prohibited, and establishing conditions, such as requiring a dog to wear a muzzle, for taking dogs from specific breeds into public places.[36] Finally, some governments, such as in Australia, have forbidden the import of specific breeds and are requiring the spay/neuter of all existing dogs of these breeds in an attempt to slowly eliminate the population through natural attrition.

I should point out that the injunction cited in the current text of the APBT article, where a judge ordered a local jurisdiction in Virginia, USA not to euthanize dogs based on breed, was lifted after the trial: the local jurisdiction was judged to be the owner of the dogs and is allowed to dispose of them in any manner prescribed by law, for any reason including their breed. Astro$01 (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no further interest or discussion, a change based on and closely following the proposed change has been implemented. Astro$01 (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy with other stuff. We don't just jack text from other articles. The law section on here is well sourced with text from multiple secondary sources. There's no reason to remove it. Whether or not it is cohesive is another story, but there's no real reason to throw it out and take text from another article. That's most certainly not done around here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If I assume that "jack" is some kind of slang for "hijack", then with regard to your "we don't just jack" comment I am wondering if it would make any difference if I was the original and sole author of the text I took from the Pit bull article, since that happens to be the case. From my perspective I am merely applying my own work and altering the wording slightly from a "pit bull" context to adapt it to the context of one of its components (American Pit Bull Terriers, which are one of several "pit bull"-type dog breeds). Astro$01 (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the current text appears to present a list of sentences with no clear train of thought from one to the next, but where each of their points is covered in much greater detail and thoroughness in the related articles. It therefore seemed to me that a concise summary of the laws related to APBTs would be more helpful (encylopedic?) here, rather than what you have now reverted, since continuing along the path the article is currently on would merely duplicate much of the current breed-specific legislation article. Astro$01 (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I meant hijack. Even if you wrote text on the pit bull article, that still doesn't mean that we duplicate text here. It's just something that isn't done for a number of reasons, including the fact that it's redundant. And this article links to the pit bull one anyway, so if people want they can just click on the link. The pit bull and APBT are not the same breed of dog, so APBT-specific text should go here.

Now, onto the current text. I don't really see how there's "no clear train of thought." All Wikipedia articles are expected to comply with WP:WORLDVIEW - that is, that we don't just talk about the United States, but about other countries too. (Side note: your text on the pit bull article is almost entirely US-centric.) But look at the article now: it opens with a paragraph about animal control, and then goes into dogfighting and the United States, and then talks about laws in other countries. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it at least attempts to talk about other countries. And of course I would entertain the idea of expanding and modifying the current text, as long as we do so with APBT-specific info and not just your pit bull text.

If you're not satisfied with this, we can always seek a third opinion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll address your points in a series of paragraphs here.

1. "The pit bull and APBT are the not the same breed of dog, so APBT-specific text should go here."

Actually, the "pit bull" is not a single breed but defined in multiple pieces of breed-specific legislation as a type of dog that includes the APBT, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier breeds; some also include the American Bulldog and the Bull Terrier breeds. The BSL page has numerous examples of legislation from around the world with these definitions, including Winnipeg, Canada: [1][2], Singapore[3], and Aurora, Colorado, USA [4]. As it is, the current source citations for the "Law" section refer to the generic "pit bull" and not the APBT:

1. The source citation for the Animal Control discussion refers to generic the "pit bull" and not to the APBT.[5] Incidentally, the injunction mentioned in the source citation was dissolved when a trial judge ruled that the county could euthanize pit bull-type dogs for any reason, including their breed.[6][7], so you may want to put a flag there unless you are willing to discuss pit bulls in general rather than the APBT in particular.
2. The second paragraph does not have any source citations; however, Australia bans the import of "the American pit bull terrier or pit bull terrier", with the "pit bull terrier" identified as being distinct from the "American pit bull terrier."
3. The citation given for the paragraph on dog fighting says, "In the United States, there are several fighting breeds that are generically referred to as 'pit bulls.'" The citation then goes on about which kennel clubs recognize which breeds, etc. and discusses the APBT only in the context of the other "pit bull" breeds.[8]
4. The Ontario Dog Owner's Liability Act (2005) specifically bans "pit bulls" and defines a "pit bull" as "(a) a pit bull terrier, (b) a Staffordshire bull terrier, (c) an American Staffordshire terrier, (d) an American pit bull terrier, (e) a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those of dogs referred to in any of clauses (a) to (d)" in the definition of "pit bull"[9]. The APBT is discussed only in the context of the "pit bull" breeds.
5. The current discussion on the Netherlands, which seems to have been found to be acceptable, does not restrict itself to the APBT
6. The current discussion on the ban in Miami-Dade county, which seems to have been found to be acceptable, does not restrict itself to the APBT.

2. "Worldview"

It would be fairly trivial to de-emphasize the United States to give the proposed replacement text a more worldly flavor. How does this sound?

A large number of jurisdictions around the world, including countries in the Americas, Europe, and Asia, have enacted breed-specific legislation (BSL) in response to a number of well-publicized incidents involving American Pit Bull Terriers and other pit bull-type dogs[27]; some government organizations, such as the United States Army[28] and Marine Corps[29], and private sector entities such as commercial airlines[30] as have taken administrative action as well. These legislative actions range from outright bans on the possession of American Pit Bull Terriers to restrictions and conditions on ownership, and often establish a legal presumption that an American Pit Bull Terrier is prima facie a legally "dangerous" or "vicious" dog. Astro$01 (talk) 00:18, October 6, 2009 UTC

No, that text isn't good, on the grounds that it's still almost entirely taken from the text on the pit bull article. *sigh* Let me think about this a little more, and I'll figure out what should be here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Before you go to all that trouble, perhaps it would help if you provided a reference to the specific Wikipedia policy or editing guideline(s) upon which you have based your objection. Astro$01 (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Break

Alright, I looked into it and there actually isn't a policy against copying text verbatim. Having said that, I would like to think that we can do better than to just steal some text from another article and change "pit bull" to "APBT". To that end, I would propose something like the following (I'm writing this in haste, so it's messy):

Further information: Pit bull § Legislation

In Canada, Norway, and Florida, APBTs are subject to the same breed-specific legislation as pit bulls. APBTs are the most commonly used dogs for dog fighting, despite it being illegal in 49 states in the US.

In doing so, we keep all of the pit bull text on the pit bull page, and have APBT-specific stuff here. Keeping everything separated out will make everyone's lives easier: if nothing else, any updates to the pit bull law section will have to be made only once, not twice. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The text proposed here does not read like an encyclopedic summary. For example, it says that APBTs are subject to the same breed-specific legislation as pit bulls (actully, "pit bull-type dogs") in three jurisdictions; but APBT restrictions apply in hundreds of locations other than those listed here because APBTs are pit bulls in the eyes of the law: once you start down the path of listing jurisdictions, you are on the path to recreating the breed-specific legislation page which, incidentally, I split out of the pit bull page several weeks ago when its content overwhelmed the pit bull-specific information. I would also leave the dog fighting discussion out of this section since dog fighting laws pertain to any dog and not just APBTs. There is also a separate dog fighting page.

I was unaware that Florida BECAME A NATION OR CONTINENT! Either a source claimed is regional, hence not recognized as a NATIONAL source, or ANY city/state is a nation, hence our CURRENT WORLD DOES NOT EXIST, as Bush is STILL president and indeed, EMPEROR! Or something equally insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wzrd1 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can really separate the APBT from the pit bull-type dog in a legal sense since BSL frequently defines the APBT to be a pit bull. The section under discussion is about "Law", so how about the following, which it seems to me is encyclopedic in nature; while borrowing fewer words from the pit bull article than my prior proposal:

Further information: Pit bull § Legislation

A large number of jurisdictions around the world, including countries in the Americas, Europe, and Asia, have enacted breed-specific legislation (BSL) in response to a number of well-publicized incidents involving American Pit Bull Terriers and other pit bull-type dogs[27]. These actions range from outright bans on the possession of American Pit Bull Terriers to restrictions and conditions on ownership, and often establish a legal presumption that an American Pit Bull Terrier is prima facie a legally "dangerous" or "vicious" dog.[28]

Borrowing words is not a Wikipedia sin (I already knew that and checked before I did it the first time), and it seems to me that it makes sense to borrow words (if they're appropriate, and especially if I wrote them in the first place) rather than try to "re-invent the wheel". Astro$01 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:V, we can only include text that is verifiable. So to make broad generalizations like "A large number of jurisdictions around the world" isn't acceptable without an appropriate source. In my example, I give three references, one for each location listed. If the two sources you give (I assume that would be 27 and 28 above) don't say "APBT" specifically, it cannot be used on this page. To take one source that says "APBTs fall under the jurisdiction of pit bulls" and another source that says "Pit bulls are banned" or whatever and draw a conclusion around that is a violation of WP:SYNthesis. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I was leaving the specific references out until the other issues were resolved, but if they have been resolved then here is the same text with live links attached; I added a reference to define "dangerous" and "vicious" since these legal terms are not defined elsewhere in the article:

A large number of jurisdictions around the world, including countries in the Americas, Europe, and Asia, have enacted breed-specific legislation (BSL) in response to a number of well-publicized incidents involving American Pit Bull Terriers and other pit bull-type dogs. These actions range from outright bans on the possession of American Pit Bull Terriers to restrictions and conditions on ownership, and often establish a legal presumption that an American Pit Bull Terrier is prima facie a legally "dangerous" or "vicious" dog.

- Astro$01 (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You missed my point. The cite you list - http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20050217/pe2.htm - talks about Vancouver and the rest of Canada, and fourteen states in the US. That's not sufficient to verify "a large number of jurisdictions around the world, including countries in the Americas, Europe, and Asia." And the second reference - http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm#meaning - does not strike me as particularly reliable. We need secondary sources for this

Since you keep rejecting my text, I don't think we're going to come to terms on this. Unless you have any objections, I'm going to ask for a third opinion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the first citation, please review Appendix C therein which identifies 12 countries with restrictive laws other than the United States and Canada . Regarding the second citation, I'm curious about what you find "unreliable": the author is a practicing attorney who specializes in dog bite cases, appears on U.S. television news broadcasts as an expert in the field, etc., so I would expect his write-up explaining legal terms like "dangerous dog" and "vicious dog" to have some initial credibility. Astro$01 (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As you wish, but you may want to thoroughly read through the citations first.... Astro$01 (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Twelve countries is not "A large number of jurisdictions." And the twelve countries given there are all in Europe, so Asia is out. And I don't know why you can't move past the text you copied over; there really isn't anything spectacular about it. How about this:

Twelve countries in Europe, Canada, and Florida have enacted some form of breed-specific legislation on pit bull-type dogs, ranging from outright bans to restrictions and conditions on ownership. The dogs are often considered to be "dangerous" or "vicious".

This way, we state exactly what is in the sources. I'm still not happy with that last sentence, but whatever. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I found the Asia reference: . If you like, I can just start adding in the names of all of the countries with restrictions, one at a time, with a citation for each. I can also add a citation for each state in the United States that has APBT restrictions, since it looks like we will need a specific citation for each. Astro$01 (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Break 2

Alright. I've copied over the text from above. I was just thinking about how to modify this section, and if you're going to really add to the US part then we may need to spin that off into its own paragraph. I would also like to see the "enacted some form" text made more specific: something like "In Norway, it is X to own a APBT. In Singapore owners can X" and so on. Generalities get us into dangerous territory, and it's better to stick with the sources. At the same time, we also need to be careful of WP:WEIGHT - that we don't add undue weight to the law section and make it bigger than the rest of the article. But I don't see that happening just yet. I'm not sure how much I'm going to be able in terms of expanding the text over the next few days, though; real life and other Wiki things will be keeping me busy. I'm still going to keep a close eye on the page, though. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy tag

I see zero input on the talk page. Please put your objections here or risk having the tag removed.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Misconceptions

Hey guys, i just added a new section in the article section about Misconceptions about Pit bulls. I just touched on one of the subjects, but i am pretty sure you can write more about it, for instance: myths.Also i added "color coats" under Appearance. Let me know what you guys think of what i wrote. Thanks in advance!Orcuatortay (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Also check out www.texasdogbiteinjurylaw.com for articles comparing pit bulls to other breeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.29.41 (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Gameness?

How come this article doesn't mention anything on the pitbulls gameness? Pitbulls are the only dogs that truely have this trait and is a VERY important characteristic of the American Pit Bull Terrier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.27.162 (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

APBTs are NOT the only breed bred to be game. Plenty of terriers have been bred as game dogs over the years, including Patterdales. And it's far too touchy a subject for a wikipedia article. People who want to truly learn about the APBT in an in-depth manner will have to go elsewhere. 71.31.30.126 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Game as in dead game, game in the ring....you know what I'm talking about and I know what your game here is. You are as easy to see through as water in a sink. Yes, people should go elsewhere to learn the FIRST THING THEY SHOULD KNOW BEFORE CONSIDERING ADOPTING OR EVEN BEING AROUND THIS BREED. You have no business on this article. How many pit bulls do you own? Do you lie about your car too? Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't need it on this page. There is a reference to their gameness linked to an article on gameness, for those interested in that aspect of dogs. Dwightlathan77 (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Says Dwight without any reasoning. Oh, but there is something in the links....oh that sounds awesome.

Gameness is such a touchy issue because it is very important, like religion being a "touchy" subject in human history. Should it therefore be left out of history books? This page is overrun with people who can't think objectively about this breed and it shows. Any decent breed description (AKC, etc) mentions gameness and dog-directed aggression. It is just the truth.

The people who control this page are liars and endangering people. They scrub DEFINING BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS from this breed like gameness and dog-directed aggression (recognized of the the APBT by the UKC and of the AmStaff by the AKC (which are the same breed folks)). They say it is too controversial or touchy. It may be among total fools but since when do encyclopedias tailor themselves to the feelings of such people? If I could, I would totally erase this page. You people should not be involved in this page or a wiki at all. I have nothing but contempt for you and cannot assume good faith on your part. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Numeric poster, you are liar, based upon MILLIONS of REALITY experienced AND documented observations. MY pit bull NURSED a kitten, then LOVED said kitten as a "beard" as she tore through the house. She happily plays with other dogs. But then, *I* ENFORCED socialization and TRAINED her, as dumb as a bag of rocks that she is. Our OTHER dogs were different, in their own ways. They ALL managed to find a middle ground to meet and be dogs. NONE have EVER been human aggressive, save for one, who protected my wife against a mugger, whose weapon was given to the police in a bag. I guess I should have killed that dog, in YOUR world or something! There ARE no defining BEHAVIORAL characteristics. Period, other than media driven drivel. If *ANYONE* wanted to go upon THAT, *HUMANITY* should be eliminated, as humanity is levels ABOVE aggressive and destructive above any species on the planet. So, mass extinction expert species, should we delete BOTH species?Wzrd1 (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Pitbulls as Opposed to Other Dogs in Temperment

For all of you little wikinazis, yes this is meant to help the article. If you look up the English Bulldogs History it was used as a bull baiter. Basically it was used to bite and chomp at bulls and kill them for sport. In the 180s the Bulldog was not a friendly creature but due to selectice breeding they are now the lovable little guys we all think are cute. My point is that by doing selective breeding like this the APBT could become more docile and hopefully its reputation would improve. IS there a group that does this? I think that would be a welcome benefit to the article. --65.2.10.12 (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, facepalm. The original English Bulldog is extinct. The English bulldog we have now is mostly pug. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

They're quite capable of emitting death rays with their eyes, but most choose not to, since then they'll risk their provisions of free food every day. Otherwise true (including "little"). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Rursus. The studies testing temperament done in Southern Saxony Germany and by the ATTS don't show there is a difference in temperament compared to other breeds thought to be non-aggressive. Dwightlathan77 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You guys have have flat misunderstood the ATTS information. That is not a test of agression its a situation test including avoidance behavior. The aggression aspect of the test in fact is based on the breed standard and as such is ABSOLUTELY not comparable to other dog breeds. The current reference of this is misleading and wrong. Desildorf (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is due to self-selection bias Dwight. My how I would love if people had basic math/logic skills. Too much to hope for among pit nutters, however.

References

I added something to the temperament section

I'm sure my addition will be scrubbed as this article is NOT like any other breed description. It is a sales pitch primarily.

from the UKC breed description found here

http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Breeds/AmericanPitBullTerrierRevisedNovember12008

among other places

" Because most APBTs exhibit some level of dog aggression and because of its powerful physique, the APBT requires an owner who will carefully socialize and obedience train the dog."

If you folks will not recognize one of the breed's defining traits, that even places like Bad Rap will acknowledge, then you have no business with this article. By not telling people that pit bulls have a higher likelihood to be aggressive toward other dogs, you are indirectly endangering other animals. Do you care? Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, my addition (with citation to the UKC) was removed. Pit bull advocates running this page HAVE NO SHAME. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm a pit bull owner and fully agree. Early and reinforced socialization with other animals is a MUST with this breed and quite a few other breeds. That said, Helen Keller didn't have any issues and she was blind, deaf and dumb.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Remove Famous Pit Bulls section

I think that section Famous Pit Bulls is unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory. Therefore, I suggest removing this section. Nazgul02 (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a copyvio of http://www.cesarsway.com/packgallery/packprofiles/Pit-Facts, so I've removed it. David1217 ^{What I've done} 03:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

this should be removed

"According to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Pit Bull type breeds have been responsible for approximately 30% of Dog Bite Related Fatalities (DBRF) in the USA between 1979 and 1998, with the majority of those victims being children. [8] It is important to note that the aforementioned CDC study "does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill." [9]"

This section in the temperament section is horrid. The CDC numbers are brought up but then serious dog bites are minimized in the next paragraph. 22:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvguy8258 (talk • contribs)

Fine by me. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

history

Pit Bulls are an ancient breed, they are not a bulldog/terrier mix, as claimed in the opening of this article. They are the one and only ancient fighting breed. They certainly date to Roman times. Richard F. Stratton's books are a good place to start for authentic info on the breed.

BRUTAL ENIGMA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.8.70 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely incorrect. Any breed can be considered ancient if you trace back far enough, obviously. Like when building phylogenetic trees in evolutionary biology, it is best to look for branch points and even within a continuous "limb" to notice important artificial selection pressures and forces that caused changes in genetic material. The APBT did indeed originate from the bull and terrier which was a cross between the old english bulldog and a terrier that occurred less than 200 years ago. This cross was then honed via selection to create various members of the pit bull breed group. To suggest otherwise is actually perverse.

I agree the history is too borad. APBT have a long history, I have some books and magazines that I would like contribute to the topic, if that's ok?--Numberonekim (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Molosser" - the APBT isn´t a molosser, it´s a TERRIER!!! Markus Pollak (VAK) (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I heard a rumor that the APBT was traced back to early Greek mastiff-like fighting dogs called Mollossians. Is that a true fact or is that a myth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.93.151 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Not happy with wording

"The fact that Pit Bulls are an extremely dangerous breed to humans is well-documented"

This is over exaggerated and not a "fact". Point of clarification it isn't the breed it is the way the dog is raised. That's like saying a particular car is extremely dangerous to humans because more sociopaths have owned them and killed people with them. Maybe rewrite something about the dog's training having to do with danger to humans. Pit bulls are NOT inherently evil and I find it disgusting that this article would depict them that way. This should be non-skewed view point. State actual facts, not "facts" that serve your purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.170.29 (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. It was added in this edit, but I have a feeling it was done by mistake. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

CKC and other kennel clubs

Many different kennel clubs have an APBT dog. It appears much of this page is based on the UKC APBT. For example the article states the weight of an APBT is "Male = 35-65lbs Female 30-60lbs", but the CKC says "Weight: (Approx.) 45-90 Lbs". Other clubs have different weights or indicates weight doesn't matter as much as proportion. This is only one aspect of the dogs that differ. How we we describe the 30+ APBT breeds that exist in all the different kennel clubs? Should we have separate pages for the different breeds of APBT or should try to include the different APBT breeds in this one article?74.177.42.156 (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If by CKC you mean Continental Kennel Club, then any information you put up from them is liable to be challeneged as they are not a reliable source. If you mean Canadian Kennel Club, throw it up and reference it. Most of those APBT breeds are not notable (no secondary reliable sources) so there's no need to include them, really.--TKK ^{bark !} 12:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Super heavy rewrite

After watching this page descend into chaos time and again, I took a swing at rewriting the page. I remove all the info from dubious, non-reliable sources, and I think I addressed the issue of tone as well. Let me know what you think. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it done? This page still lacks the correct information necessary for a wikipedia article. For example:

-The information on the breed's origin is incorrect

-The photo is lacking

-The dog itself is NOT a Terrier, NonconformistScumbag (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)NonconformistScumbag

I think you cant add anything about Gotti Line because that is am American Bully bloodline NOT and APBT anymore... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.66.67 (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Old Family Red Nose be merged into this article; since it's a variety of APBT that is notable, but not really notable enough to need its own article. --TKK ^{bark !} 00:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I second this proposal. This section should be incorporated or removed altogether. "Old Family" and "Red Nose" are not primary characteristics that are recognized by the ADBA, the authoritative registry of the APBT. They are simply recessive traits that occur from litter to litter as noted by the articles original author. --Dablyputs (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I third it. With zero opposition, I suggest that it just be done. The proposal has now been open for over two months.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

problems with this article

This article is written by people without an objective view on this breed. I cannot assume good faith when it is so obvious. This article does not mention two of the most important traits someone considering getting one should be aware of: gameness and higher likelihood of dog-directed aggression. This page is actually dangerous to those with other dogs considering getting an APBT.

Further, the limitations of the ATTS test (especially when it is used for inter-breed comparison) are not discussed whatsoever.

Wikipedia would be better off with no article on this breed at all than one like this.

Shame on the people controlling this article. But alas you cannot reason with zealots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvguy8258 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is community edited. If you have some changes/edits by all means present them for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.167 (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

yall come off as mad because your hate couldnt get past our editors... you call shame and shout your disagreement... but you havent produced any sources for your hate against a loving breed.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.181.1 (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

this page is horrible

This page is written by pit bull fanciers/advocates for other advocates and for a naive public. It references known pit bull propagandists like Bad Rap and Karen Delise's organization. It is a shame that it is not even objective enough to mention dog-directed aggression and gameness. Too controversial for you all? Too bad anyone making a breed decision would need this information and you are actually endangering people. Also, the ATTS test breed comparison is totally illegitimate due to something called self-selection bias. This is the worst case scenario as the variable of interest directly controls the probability of being in the sample. They president of the ATTS org admitted that only 6 out of 1,000s tested have flunked for stranger aggression. This shows that people do not bring in dogs that will likely fail. The percentage of "obvious test failures" are weeded out by breed and the percentage varies by breed. In other words, could you get an accurate comparison of penis length between two counties by asking for volunteers to be measured at the local bars. The answer is obviously no. I'm not surprised no one saw or recognized this as this article is written by kool-aid drinkers. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The ATTS test also has different standards for different breeds (as in a husky can be more aggressive than a lab and still pass). This means it cannot be used for comparison. Anonopotamous 18:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desildorf (talk • contribs)

Missing picture

Could someone tell me where this picture of the pit bull resting in the sun went? That was a picture of an actual pure bred and I would like to know where it went as it made an excellent representation of what an authentic pit bull looks like — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.22.81 (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite advice?

I'd like to improve this page substantially, and I wanted to check in about how people think it could be most improved. I specifically want to change the Temperament section, add a lot more information about the controversy surrounding pit bulls and the breed's progression in public opinion to its current state, add more statistics from study findings and academic sources in general, and expand the Law section to explain what exactly Breed Specific Legislation means in different countries or regions. The main problem that I see is that just from a moderate search for information related to APBTs, it is difficult to find an objective source. Most sources that would otherwise seem reliable appear to fall into two camps: overcorrecting to regain the breed's positive reputation, or overly negative. I'm curious about advice on how to navigate objectivity with regard to this topic. Thanks for all input!

Shelly (HPR) (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

ATTS

I had to delete some bogus and misrepresented primary source material sourced from the ATTS. ATTS information has been debated. Each time it is determined that the opions of the ATTS is not vetted nor scientific and should not be included as such in any article. Mantion (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Same pic appears as Staffordshire and Pit Bull.

The picture alongside the temperament section here also appears as an example of American Staffordshire Terrier in that article. If someone knows what the dog really is, please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.128.13 (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Photo is not representational of the breed

I don't think the photo on there is a good representation of a American Pitbull Terrier, and i would like to have it removed.

199.43.48.131 (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)CHARLES 12/29/08

No, it's a fine picture. It's up on Wiki commons is acceptable to use here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

APBT come in many colors and sizes and I would like to have more pictures of this breed to show the wide varities there are.--Numberonekim (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ya a better photo to represent the breed should be used--201.230.55.7 (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the photo IS representational of the breed. I also believe that pictures of Nipper (the RCA Victor dog - bizarrely said to be a Jack Russell by the BBC!), Petey (the Our Gang dog), and Tige (Buster Brown's dog) should be included.

I've seen this white pit portrayed as a lab mix on other sites and have to admit that it looks like one from that angle and position. I believe most people wouldn't recognize this dog as an American Pit Bull Terrier when compared to the dogs the breed's standard was set on, perhaps that's ignorance on society's side. In all I like the image since it's a beautiful pit that's in a neutral posture and not overly built, but would like a picture that more clearly represents the APBT standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.148.64 (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The photo is exactly representative of the breed. The classic APBT is a slender, muscular dog with a deep chest. Although APBT's were never bred for conformance to appearance standards, the photo is the "classic" appearance. Occaissionally you see a wide, squat pit bull but they were very rare. People are breeding them bigger and bigger and squatter and shorter, but that is not how they are supposed to look. --Kelt65 (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

First paragraph of temperament section, citation acually from two different souces mixed together

The first paragraph of the "Temperament" section reads

According to the UKC,"This breed is eager to please and brimming over with enthusiasm. APBTs make excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children.[7] The APBT is a powerful and often times fearless dog with a high drive to please his master. Unfortunately, unfit owners at times have misused the APBT's trusting nature, training PitBull's for aggression and the results can be adverse.[8] The breed’s natural agility makes it one of the most capable canine climbers so good fencing is a must for this breed. This breed does very well in performance events because of its high level of intelligence and its willingness to work." [9]

As it is now, it reads as a direct citation from UKC although only first and last part are from UKC (http://www.ukcdogs.com/Web.nsf/Breeds/AmericanPitBullTerrier12012012), the middle part is from the page http://mrpitbull.com/PitbullTemperament.html (and although close, it is not a direct citation, see below). This is probably an oversight, resulting from editors not paying attention to the citation marks and the whole structure of the paragraph. But as it stands now, it is misleading.

How the paragraph should read instead, and what sources would be suitable is another question, which I leave for others with more knowledge of the subject to decide. But since both sources used now mentions tendencies for dog agression it might be seen as misrepresenting the source not to include that as well.

Below is the UKC text which the fist and last part of the paragraph came from:

This breed is eager to please and brimming over with enthusiasm. APBTs make excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children. Because most APBTs exhibit some level of dog aggression and because of its powerful physique, the APBT requires an owner who will carefully socialize and obedience train the dog. The breed’s natural agility makes it one of the most capable canine climbers so good fencing is a must for this breed. The APBT is not the best choice for a guard dog since they are extremely friendly, even with strangers. Aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable. This breed does very well in performance events because of its high level of intelligence and its willingness to work.

Below is the direct quote of the sentences from http://mrpitbull.com/PitbullTemperament.html used in the Wikipedia article. It is almost the same as what is in the Wikipedia article, but American Pitbull and Pitbull has been changed to APBT. Since there are a number of dogs referred to as Pitbulls, I am not sure that APBT is actually what was originally meant, or if it was meant to refer to the broader category. And of course, if stated to be a direct citation, it should really be so.

Yes, the AMERICAN PITBULL is a powerful and often times fearless dog with a high drive to please his master. Unfortunately, unscrupulous individuals at times have misused the Pit's trusting nature, training PitBull's for aggression and the results can be adverse.

Pastisch (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You are mixed up. The reason for the breed's traits is because they were selectively breed for bull baiting and dog fighting. They weren't misused for dog fighting, they were genetically designed by humans for it. A breed created by sadists for activities now illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.19.87.71 (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pastisch, thanks for picking that up; I'm not sure exactly when it occurred but the ref to a personal/commercial website should not have been included. As a quick fix, I've simply copied the UKC paragraph about characteristics as a quote. Hopefully someone will eventually come along and put the paragraph into their own words based on the UKC quote. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a Patterdale-Border Cross. A pitbull is 3 times his size. Recently we were attacked by a pitbull which its teenage handler had left unleashed & unmuzzled in a children's playground with a "No Dogs" sign. As I ran from it, I had to swing my dog to get him away from this unprovoked attack. My dog slipped his harness & beat the living bejasus out of it, literally chasing the fleeing pitbull back where it came from. It took us 2 minutes to prise my dog's jaws off its ear, whilst it whimpered like a scared girl. Had my dog not done this, he could have been killed as could I. For "game" the term "dangerous" could be substituted as can the observation that all bullies are cowards. It might be argued should apply to their owners too.--Fluttershypegasus (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

UKC quote

Under the 'Temperament' section, a block quotation from the UKC standard is included - see here under Characteristics. This is reproduced (correctly for a quote) in full. It appears one part of it is being removed; either it should be quoted in full or the entire quote removed. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. I am a newer editor and saw that the revision had been made several days ago and thought it was being reverted in error. I did not realize it was part of a quotation. Whodoesntlovemonkeys (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American Pit Bull Terrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120321142626/http://www.apbt.info/tiki-index.php?page=Red+Nose+History to http://www.apbt.info/tiki-index.php?page=Red+Nose+History

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"American Bully"?

Just out of curiosity, where is the "American Bully" Wikipedia page? It does exist in several other languages, but not in the English one... To the best of my knowledge it has become an official UKC Breed and received a standard in July 1, 2013. I would bet someone does add it but it keeps getting deleted and redirected to the American Pit Bull Terrier section... I'm asking here because if you type in "american bully" you get redirected here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.33.243.36 (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

See American Bully! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  11:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Temperament - Ontario Source

"In 2014, new statistical evidence emerged regarding the province-wide ban on "pit bulls", more specifically the American Pit Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Terrier, in the Canadian province of Ontario. It was reported to show that since the ban had been implemented, dog bites involving the two breeds and dogs of their likeness had dropped considerably in the province's largest city Toronto."

This line and/or its citation should be removed or changed. It ignores a central criticism of BSL, which is that OVERALL dog bites do not change, as undesirable owners move on to other types of dogs. This simply says that since banning pit bulls, pit bull bites have decreased, which is silly. Additionally, it's an inappropriate source, with lines like, "sentimental pit bull lovers — an odd coalition between drug-dealer types who love the dogs for their menacing appearance and stash-guarding powers, and suburban soccer moms who relish their self-perceived role as defenders of what they naïvely regard as the doggie world’s misunderstood but adorable bad boys." The article it links to would be a better source, but even here I do not see a comparison of overall bite numbers, which should be included to make its point. Still, I'm not sure any of this belongs here, as BSL is a complicated topic, and including a point about Ontario's success should also acknowledge that many other cities have repealed similar laws, where they found no public benefit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonuspig (talk • contribs) 01:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This article shows that overall bites have indeed not gone down, so I'm removing the Ontario line for the above reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonuspig (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You can add it with the sources you include above, but do not remove the existing copy and reference. The reader can make up their own mind. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  11:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, but I disagree that any of it is relevant to "Temperament." Any breed's bite numbers will go down when their population goes down. That's not a logical or scientific connection to temperament. If it said something like, APBTs bite at a statistically higher rate, that would make sense. The whole paragraph should be removed, as it belongs in the Breed-Specific Legislation discussion. Bonuspig (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on American Pit Bull Terrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090719152149/http://www.hsus.org/acf/fighting/dogfight/dogfighting_fact_sheet.html to http://www.hsus.org/acf/fighting/dogfight/dogfighting_fact_sheet.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pets_pitbull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229013242/http://www.ava.gov.sg:80/NR/rdonlyres/0CA18578-7610-4917-BB67-C7DF4B96504B/17971/ABDogLicensingandControlRules2007.pdf to http://www.ava.gov.sg/NR/rdonlyres/0CA18578-7610-4917-BB67-C7DF4B96504B/17971/ABDogLicensingandControlRules2007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on American Pit Bull Terrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024001344/http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/October/k9.xml to http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/October/k9.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150411211206/http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf to http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024001344/http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/October/k9.xml to http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/October/k9.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090312052256/http://www.hoy.com.ec:80/noticias-ecuador/ecuador-descalifica-a-perros-pit-bull-y-rottweiler-como-mascotas-332398.html to http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/ecuador-descalifica-a-perros-pit-bull-y-rottweiler-como-mascotas-332398.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927121655/http://www.oslpr.org/download/en/1998/0158.pdf to http://www.oslpr.org/download/en/1998/0158.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100720091321/http://www.laprensa.com.ni:80/2010/01/06/internacionales/12316 to http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2010/01/06/internacionales/12316

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Please stop with the lies.

"yet overall dog bites hit their highest levels this century in 2013 and 2014.[23]"

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2008/10/12/a_dog_census.html

http://www1.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20Toronto/Information%20&%20Technology/Open%20Data/Data%20Sets/Assets/Files/2013%20licences%20sold%20by%20primary%20breed.xls

http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto/2014/08/06/which-toronto-neighbourhood-has-the-most-cats-and-dogs.html

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/11/19/despite-breed-ban-sales-of-illegal-pit-bulls-continue.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:A41A:AA00:78:D793:FE48:F1CF (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Even though the bites in absolute terms are roughly at the same level, the population of dogs has increased. The overall levels are lower.

"The authors concluded by noting that "breeds responsible for human DBRF have varied over time" (for example, Great Danes caused the most reported DBRF between 1979 and 1980). In the face of this inconclusive data, the study authors recommended that breed should not be the "primary factor driving public policy", instead making the following policy recommendations: "adequate funding for animal control agencies, enforcement of existing animal control laws, and educational and policy strategies to reduce inappropriate dog and owner behaviors" as likely to be beneficial and specifically to decrease the occurrence of dog bites.[20]"

The data is not inconclusive. Additionally they didnt say that breed should not be the primary factor. They said that fatal bites should not he the primary factor;

"Because (1) fatal bites constitute less than 0.00001% of all dog bites annually, (2) fatal bites have remained relatively constant over time, whereas nonfatal bites have been increasing, and (3) fatal bites are rare at the usual political level where bite regulations are pro-mulgated and enforced, we believe that fatal bites should not be the primary factor driving public policy regarding dog bite prevention." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:A41A:AA00:78:D793:FE48:F1CF (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it's not neutral but clearly biased in favor of Pits. I think somebody needs to simply present the facts and let people make up their own minds. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

De Niro

No, not that actor, but the pit bull that portrays Number One on Star Trek: Picard.

Any way he could be brought into, or mentioned in, the article?

Just a thought. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Why do many pitbulls come in many colors,shape, and sizes?

Why do pit bulls come in many colors shapes and sizes. I have seen pictures of pit bulls, and there brown,blue,black, white,etc. with spots. Others don't have spots,and are completely black,white,and brown. I heard that some pit bulls weight 100 pounds or more! which is above the the average,60 pounds.Imagine how strong they are!(User:Coolguy10038) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The answer is very simple. Many of the pictures you saw were misidentifications. Since many breeders of other breeds and crossbreeds still use the pit bull name for trade, as it is a very popular name that draws a lot of attention, they do so under the confusion that has become defining what pit bull is. But the American Pit Bull Terrier, the only purebred breed that has pit bull in its official name, has an official standard (with well-defined size and weight) to follow and is quite homogeneous for a working breed. I recommend that you take look at other breeds such as: Adventurous36 (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC) American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bulldog. Adventurous36 (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)