Talk:Pit bull

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[1], 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. [2]. 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[3]. 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)

The discussion is now on archive page 456:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#h-Use of medical literature for claims about relative incidence of dog attacks by-20241023203400 Wikigrund (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Identification of pit bull breeds

To avoid edit warring I wanted to ask why large portions of my edits and sources have been removed? I was not even finished adding content to the section when most of it got deleted. The reason given was: "Trim content not related to pitbulls and rewrite Australian registration issue".

I do not agree that what I have written is not related to pit bulls. Pit bull breeds can have registration papers (which can help to prove the dog's breed, if the dog or its parents were registered at some point), their DNA can be tested and compared to their suspected parents DNA, their pictures can be AI analyzed, they can be determined by their physical characteristics. That breed assessment is done for health and legal reasons also applies to pit bull breeds. I do not understand why this was removed.

Text passage affected:

diff Strikethrough: Removed. Underlined: Added

Methods: There are various ways to identify a dog's breed. It can be proven through registration papers (pedigree) or it can be determined by examining a dog's physical traits. A look at the dog's DNA to validate parentage, testing DNA-based ancestry and the use of artificial intelligence are further methods employed to provide information about a dog's breed. The determination of a dog's breed can be necessary for health or legal reasons.

Pure breed identification: If registration papers are not available, purebred dogs can be determined by their physical characteristics:

"The identification of differing physical characteristics of dogs is an uncomplicated and straightforward way to categorize dog breeds."

Mixed or cross breed identification: Mixed or cross breed identification can be more challenging than pure breed identification and can be supported by testing for genetic markers. However, DNA-based ancestry testing that works with owner-reported databases can be unreliable.

Studies have found that when people involved in dog rescue, adoption, and regulation identify the breed of a dog of mixed parentage, this identification did not always correlate with the DNA analysis of that dog. Mixed-breed dogs are often labeled as pit bulls if they have certain physical characteristics, such as a square-shaped head or bulky body type.

False breed declaration: Although an offense in many countries or juristictions, it came to light that In Australia some dog owners gavegive false information regarding the breed of their dog to local authorities, despite this being an offence under the Crimes Act. Inquests after fatal or serious dog attacks showed that pit bull owners registered their dogs under a wide range of other breeds, like the Australian Terrier, to evade their local laws and regulations.

Wikigrund (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

What you wrote could be included in any dog breed article, but if we included every dog related thing in an article on a dog breed the article would become quickly bloated and have little information on the breed itself. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Traumnovelle: The controversies surrounding the ability or inability to identify dogs, and the sources published about it, are predominantly related to pit bulls and their closely related breeds because of the desire to regulate such dogs for public safety purposes. Few bother to question the ability to identify a Golden Retriever or a German Shepherd or any other breed. Your earlier two-times removal [4] [5] of content which was related specifically to identification and regulating of pit bulls giving different reasons, then this removal, makes me suspicious. Wikianon3770617 (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The content you added verges into howto territory and was not encyclopaedic. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Dude, that's an even stranger argument. By the way, I didn't actually add that content; I had tried to add sources. [6] After your first wholesale removal stated a bizarre reason, I tried to restore it while clarifying what it applied to. [7] Wikianon3770617 (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

You're trying to discuss two different pieces of content in the same section. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's important to take a step back and see if an "average reader" can understand a section. I added a few sentences that introduce the topic for readers who are not familiar with the subject at all. I have listed common methods that are used to prove or evaluate a dog's breed. I also exemplary mentioned two reasons why it can be necessary to identify a dog's breed. I think it is appropriate to put such introductory words at the beginning of a section like this.

Right now, without any introductory words, the section jumps to a specific focus of the topic = visual identification of mixed breed dogs in shelters by shelter staff. I find that a bit weird.

I think it's also important to include the note that “breed ancestry DNA tests” are unreliable (and should only be used by curious owners as the American Kennel Club emphasize on their website). They can give different results depending on the company. I think that using the word “DNA tests” without further explanation is misleading and leads the reader to believe that such tests are 99,999 % accurate (because the DNA fingerprinting method is accurate and people often think it's the same thing).

I would also like to point out that the introduction to the subsection “Liability insurance” also contains introductory words that could be included in any article about dogs. Wikigrund (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikigrund: You could make it a separate wikipage since you have many sources for the topic, and you say you weren't finished. You could title it Dog breed identification, for example, and link to it from here and other related breed articles. Wikianon3770617 (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. The topic has many interesting aspects that are worth writing about. Wikigrund (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

American Bulldog is Not a Pit Bull

Hello,

The American Bulldog is NOT a type of Pit Bull; they do not have any Terrier in their lineage/pedigree.

Can this be corrected?

Thanks! :) 2600:6C50:7A3F:3F33:D186:4168:C228:C47D (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Newly expanded 'Identification' section

User:Wikigrund expanded the 'Identification' section from a paltry 2 short paragraphs to cover numerous issues surrounding the identification of pit bulls. This link shows the newly expanded section. I find the new section comprehensive, well-written and well-sourced by reliable independent third parties. User:Traumnovelle removed the expanded content with an edit summary claiming it was "unencyclopaedic essay-style content" which is not a valid reason to remove content. Traumnovelle then deceptively claimed it had "poor sourcing such as random blogs". I don't see a single blog. What I find instead are 5 government websites (2 DK, 2 UK, 1 FR), 2 national kennel clubs (AUS & USA), the American Veterinary Medical Assoc, 3 journals (Veterinary Internal Medicine, IEEE, PubMed), and one veterinary-authored website. Traumnovelle has not otherwise given an appropriate policy or guideline that supports not including this very relevant content, challenges the entirety of the new content but not any particular statement, and suggests seeking consensus to include the content, citing WP:ONUS. Meanwhile, the new content improves the article, and has verifiable in-line citations which satisfies WP:BURDEN.

Discuss. Wikianon3770617 (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Fine, I'll dissect this pelt piece by piece if you so demand it.

'Determining whether an individual dog is of a pit bull breed can be necessary for health or legal reasons. Pit bull breeds and their mixes can be prone to certain health issues and proactive care can prevent or mitigate those issues.' Sourced to this: [8] (not an RS, just a SEO blog selling products), a research article which states: 'Pit bull breeds (American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Bulldogs, and American Bullies) and pit bull–type dogs (ie, not purebred or of unknown pedigree but considered to be a pit bull–type breed based on appearance) are not reported to be breeds commonly affected by primary DCM.' The study itself is about the diets of dogs and not genetic predispositions to health conditions. And another research article: [9] which does not mention breed identification.

'Pit bull breeds, pit bull type dogs, and their mixes are legally regulated or banned in many countries.'

Already mentioned elsewhere.

'In Denmark, the police can request that a dog owner provides proof that the dog is not prohibited under the Danish Dog Act. Danish authorities recommend that dog owners make sure they have documentation of their dog's origin and breed, especially if their dog has characteristics similar to those prohibited: "Possessors of a dog, which in appearance have some features in common with one or more of the prohibited breeds, are recommended to ensure that they possess documentation of their dog's breed."<'

No secondary coverage, undue to give focus to this based on a primary source. Wikipedia should summarise secondary sources not provide excessive detail on the nuances of laws.

'In the United Kingdom it is also a dog owner's responsibility to prove that the dog is not one of the prohibited types (dog types bred for fighting) under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 or that the dog has a Certificate of Exemption (grandfather clause). The UK uses Dog Legislation Officers (DLO) which have special training and experience in dog identification. Those officers also provide expert evidence for authorities.'

Ditto.

Methods

Reads like a guidebook, we're not here to advise people on how to identify breeds.

'or the use of artificial intelligence'

This is sourced to a primary source research article, needs better sourcing to be proven as a fact that AI can be used to identify breeds.

' Which method is suitable depends on the purpose of the identification. While some methods might be good enough to satisfy a dog owner's curiosity'

Unsourced commentary.

'Registration papers are a common way to prove that a dog is purebred'

This was already stated.

' Pit bull breeds that can be registered through their breed clubs at internationally recognized Kennel Clubs are the American Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The American Staffordshire Terrier can be registered at the American Kennel Club (AKC)'

Too much detail about which breeds can be registered with which kennel clubs, we don't even have that information on the articles on the specific breeds themselves.

'The FCI maintains and publicizes their breed standards. In contrast, the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Bulldog and the American Bully are not recognized by international Kennel Clubs, but they can be registered by breed clubs or individuals at other Kennel Clubs.'

Unsourced.

'If registration papers are not available, purebred dogs can be determined by their physical traits: "The identification of differing physical characteristics of dogs is an uncomplicated and straightforward way to categorize dog breeds."'

Selective cherry-picking, the full quote is: 'The identification of differing physical characteristics of dogs is an uncomplicated and straightforward way to categorize dog breeds. However, many dog owners and veterinarians still struggle to distinguish between pure breed and mixed variations in certain breeds of dogs.' The source doesn't support the claim either, it just says you can categorise them based on phenotype, not that one can identify specific breeds based on appearance.

'An example of traits that distinguish a Labrador Retriever from an American Pit Bull Terrier consider characteristics of a dog's form as well as his function and typical behavior:' This is a comparison not made by sources and instead made by the editor.

'Canine specialists, researchers, breed assessors, dog trainers or dog legislation officers look at a suspected pit bull's physical characteristics like the shape of the head, ears, flews, jowls, teeth, eyes, chest, legs and tail, as well as the characteristics of the dog's coat (color, hair length, growth and texture), skin, weight, height and body length to determine if a dog categorizes as a pit bull type dog or not.' This is sourced to two pieces of legislation, it does not support the claim that these are used by 'Canine specialists, researchers, ... , dog trainers'.

'Whether the dog type pit bull can be sufficiently defined has been the subject of legal disputes. For example, the claim that the legal phrase "commonly known as a pit bull dog" is unconstitutionally vague has been dismissed by judicial decisions: "...the ownership of a dog 'commonly known as a pit bull dog' is prima facie evidence of the ownership of a vicious dog, is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness since dogs commonly known as pit bulls possess unique and readily identifiable physical and behavioral traits which are capable of recognition both by dog owners of ordinary intelligence and by enforcement personnel." The court also found that specific behavioral features distinguish pit bulls from other dogs and therefore can be taken into account when identifying a pit bull: "Furthermore, the dog owner of ordinary intelligence, when determining whether he or she owns a pit bull dog, need not rely solely on the dog's physical traits. Rather, the pit bull possesses certain distinctive behavioral features which differentiate it from other dog breeds."'

Cites the case itself, not appropriate use of primary source. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I would like to point out that calling my work “pelt” is not a good way to start a discussion. In European English, the term has a negative connotation (piece of trash; inferior quickly written work thrown at someone).

I put a lot of time into improving this section (After my first contribution to the section was removed, I spent more than 2 months researching, writing a draft, collecting and selecting suitable examples, comparing sources, weighing what is interesting enough, etc.) I would like to note that I found it rude that my edit was reverted the way it was.

On the points raised (for the sake of clarity, I have divided them according to their subheadings):

1) Identification (Introduction of the section)

Quote Traumnovelle: "The study itself is about the diets of dogs and not genetic predispositions to health conditions. And another research article: [19] which does not mention breed identification."

My response: I used three sources for this statement: "Determining whether an individual dog is of a pit bull breed can be necessary for health or legal reasons. Pit bull breeds and their mixes can be prone to certain health issues and proactive care can prevent or mitigate those* issues." [1][2][3]

(*changed the wording in the article to "certain health" to avoid misunderstanding.)

The three sources I chose, verify that pit bull specific health care exists.

The first source (written by Dr. Patrick Mahaney, a Veterinarian and Certified Veterinary Journalist) might be published as a blog entry, but the author has relevant qualifications to speak on the subject. I don't think that breed specific health care is a controversial topic, therefore I did not expect this author's blog entry to be challenged as a non reliable source.

The second source (published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association) verifies that health issues that can be connected to care (diet given by the owner) and mitigated through treatment (diet change):

"This retrospective study of DCM in pit bull–type breeds provided information that may help clinicians and researchers better understand the disease in these breeds. In this study, dogs with DCM eating nontraditional diets that changed diets and dogs eating traditional diets had a significantly longer median survival time after diagnosis compared to dogs with DCM eating nontraditional diets that did not have a diet change, despite the common finding of CHF at the time of diagnosis; this information may be of prognostic value to owners of dogs of these breeds that are diagnosed with DCM. Results of this study showed that pit bull–type breeds with DCM eating nontraditional diets that changed diets had significant improvement in echocardiographic measurements compared to dogs eating traditional diets. Dogs with DCM-C may represent an earlier form or variation of DCM and showed similar improvement in echocardiographic measurements after diet change."[10]

The third source (published in the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine) verifies that a genetic component to certain health issues exists:

"Pedigrees were obtained for 52 dogs and these dogs had a closest common ancestor born in the 1950s. [...] The pedigrees of 37 dogs in which full information on the status of affected dogs’ littermates was available were used in the statistical analysis of the mode of inheritance. [...] The most parsimonious model of inheritance was a Mendelian recessive model with an estimated frequency of the deleterious allele within the collection of pedigrees of 39%. This recessive mode of inheritance is sufficient to explain the familial clustering of the phenotypes in the studied pedigrees" [...] The late onset of signs results in affected dogs being bred before they develop ataxia, potentially causing wide dissemination of the disease within the breed. It is likely that the mutation responsible for the disease already is widely dispersed within the population because the problem has been recognized in dogs from all geographic areas of America and in Europe, and affected dogs have a closest common ancestor dating back to the 1950s."

"The appearance of this disease and the apparent increase in its prevalence are of great concern for the American Staffordshire Terrier breed. A genetic test that can identify carrier and affected dogs before breeding is needed."[11]

2) Legal

Quote Traumnovelle: "No secondary coverage, undue to give focus to this based on a primary source. Wikipedia should summarise secondary sources not provide excessive detail on the nuances of laws."

Response: The page of the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration I linked and the recommendation I quoted from this page is a secondary source to the legislation. Also: WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD:

"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.

Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources."

Same goes for UK and the "Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)" and "Housing and local services" pages I used as sources.

Furthermore, I do not think I provided excessive detail. I carefully selected the most relevant points.

3) Methods

Quote Traumnovelle: "Reads like a guidebook, we're not here to advise people on how to identify breeds."

Response: No, it does not. The paragraph mentions available methods. That's it.

Note: I have added "as well as determined through" to make it more clear that DNA parental testing and pedigree are commonly considered proof.

Quote Traumnovelle: "This is sourced to a primary source research article, needs better sourcing to be proven as a fact that AI can be used to identify breeds."

Response: Did you even read the paper? The authors did a comprehensive literature survey, reflecting on 27 academic dog breed identification papers which used a variety of Convolutional Neural Network models for classification, reflecting on the success rate of different methods used. That makes it a secondary source.

Quote Traumnovelle: "Unsourced commentary."

My response: The statement: "Which method is suitable depends on the purpose of the identification. While some methods might be good enough to satisfy a dog owner's curiosity." is not unsourced commentary. It is common sense and an easy to verify statement. For example stated on the American Kennel Club's website I used as a source in the sentence before:

"Some commercial companies are offering DNA-based ancestry testing based on a library of samples to determine breed or geographical ancestry. These tests are often used by mixed breed owners who are curious about which purebreds are in their dog’s ancestry. Like other human ancestry tests, the library of samples that is used to determine ancestry is based on owner-reported data, which can be flawed. These tests should be used for curiosity regarding the ancestry of a dog of unknown heritage and not as a purity test for purebred dogs."[12]

The whole sentence is: "Which method is suitable depends on the purpose of the identification. While some methods might be good enough to satisfy a dog owner's curiosity, not all methods are accepted for legal reasons." followed by a good example why some reliable methods are not legally accepted.

4) Pure breed identification

Quote Traumnovelle: "Too much detail about which breeds can be registered with which kennel clubs, we don't even have that information on the articles on the specific breeds themselves."

Response: I do not agree, it is important which breed can be registered at which Kennel Club.

Quote Taumnovelle: " 'The FCI maintains and publicizes their breed standards. In contrast, the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Bulldog and the American Bully are not recognized by international Kennel Clubs, but they can be registered by breed clubs or individuals at other Kennel Clubs.' Unsourced"

My response: Their breed standard is sourced the sentence before, easy to verify. What the FCI does is common knowledge and easy to verify if necessary. Same goes for the registration of the other mentioned breeds.

Quote Traumnovelle "Selective cherry-picking, the full quote is: 'The identification of differing physical characteristics of dogs is an uncomplicated and straightforward way to categorize dog breeds. However, many dog owners and veterinarians still struggle to distinguish between pure breed and mixed variations in certain breeds of dogs.' The source doesn't support the claim either, it just says you can categorise them based on phenotype, not that one can identify specific breeds based on appearance."

My response: It was not selective cherry-picking, I think I interpreted the sentence differently. I agree on removing this part.

Quote Traumnovelle: "An example of traits that distinguish a Labrador Retriever from an American Pit Bull Terrier consider characteristics of a dog's form as well as his function and typical behavior:' This is a comparison not made by sources and instead made by the editor."

My response: I changed the wording to avoid misunderstanding. I just listed the breeds traits. It was not my intention to make it look like I compare them. My intention was to list identifiable traits.

Dog type identification

Quote Traumnovelle: "Canine specialists, researchers, breed assessors, dog trainers or dog legislation officers look at a suspected pit bull's physical characteristics like the shape of the head, ears, flews, jowls, teeth, eyes, chest, legs and tail, as well as the characteristics of the dog's coat (color, hair length, growth and texture), skin, weight, height and body length to determine if a dog categorizes as a pit bull type dog or not.' This is sourced to two pieces of legislation, it does not support the claim that these are used by 'Canine specialists, researchers, ... , dog trainers"

My response: Although I think it is common sense. I changed it to breed assessors, which is sourced.

Quote Traumnovelle: "Cites the case itself, not appropriate use of primary source."

My response: I used 2 secondary sources for the statement: "has been the subject of legal disputes" and an opinion for the direct quotes, which are a judge's opinion. A judge's opinion is based on witness testimony and analysis of the law and thereby a secondary source. A court transcript of witness statements is primary, a judge's opinion is secondary.

I am sorry it took me so long to respond, but it was a lot to read, reread and think about. Thank you Wikianon3770617 for bringing it to the talk page. If we all work together we can improve this page. Wikigrund (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

>My response: I used three sources for this statement: "Determining whether an individual dog is of a pit bull breed can be necessary for health or legal reasons. Pit bull breeds and their mixes can be prone to certain health issues and proactive care can prevent or mitigate those* issues." [1][2][3]

And those 3 sources do not support the claim.

Vetnique is just an SEO spam optimisation site, it doesn't matter if they paid someone to write or slap their name on it - it doesn't come even close to being an RS.

>The second source (published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association) verifies that health issues that can be connected to care (diet given by the owner) and mitigated through treatment (diet change):

So it has absolutely nothing to do with the claim in question you have used it for.

>The third source (published in the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine) verifies that a genetic component to certain health issues exists:

It does, but it doesn't state that identifying is a breed is a pit bull-type breed or not is important, or even mention it at all.

>Response: The page of the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration I linked and the recommendation I quoted from this page is a secondary source to the legislation.

No it isn't. A secondary source would be discussion of the law in a law journal for example.

>Furthermore, I do not think I provided excessive detail. I carefully selected the most relevant points.

You've increased the article size by 1/3rd for an entire section that infrequently comes up in secondary/tertiary sources. That is excessive detail. No other breed article dedicates this much focus to these topics.

>No, it does not. The paragraph mentions available methods. That's it.

Why? Do secondary/tertiary sources on pit bulls mention this. No other article does this, why do you wish to do so for this one?

>It is common sense

So your commentary.

>Response: I do not agree, it is important which breed can be registered at which Kennel Club.

There are dozens of kennel clubs and that would be a topic for the article on the specific breeds themselves, not one like this. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

It's very difficult for other editors to evaluate all this, as it's tl;dr. I'd suggest breaking it down into a series of individual discussions about individual potential changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I start with this part:

"Registration papers are a common way to prove that a dog is purebred. Pit bull breeds that can be registered through their breed clubs at internationally recognized Kennel Clubs are the American Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The American Staffordshire Terrier can be registered at the American Kennel Club (AKC) or Australian Kennel Club (Dogs Australia). The Staffordshire Bull Terrier can be registered at the American Kennel Club (AKC), the Kennel Club (KC), and the Australian Kennel Club (Dogs Australia). Both breeds are also recognized by the International Canine Federation (FCI). The FCI maintains and publicizes their breed standards. In contrast, the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Bulldog and the American Bully are not recognized by international Kennel Clubs, but they can be registered by breed clubs or individuals at other Kennel Clubs."

Critic from Traumnovelle: "

"'Registration papers are a common way to prove that a dog is purebred'

This was already stated.

' Pit bull breeds that can be registered through their breed clubs at internationally recognized Kennel Clubs are the American Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The American Staffordshire Terrier can be registered at the American Kennel Club (AKC)'

Too much detail about which breeds can be registered with which kennel clubs, we don't even have that information on the articles on the specific breeds themselves.

'The FCI maintains and publicizes their breed standards. In contrast, the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Bulldog and the American Bully are not recognized by international Kennel Clubs, but they can be registered by breed clubs or individuals at other Kennel Clubs.'

Unsourced."

My suggestion to shorten and rewrite the paragraph:

"Two pit bull breeds, the American Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, can be registered through their breed clubs at internationally recognized Kennel Clubs, like the American Kennel Club (AKC), to receive registration papers.[S] [S] Both breeds are also recognized by the International Canine Federation (FCI), which maintains and publicizes their breed standards.[S][S] [S] In contrast, the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Bulldog and the American Bully are not recognized by international Kennel Clubs, but they can be registered at other Kennel Clubs, like the United Kennel Club (UKC). [S] [S][S]." Wikigrund (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The best way to do that is to have the stable version reverted to and see how each introduction would effect the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

No, this would not be the best way (based on my experience on this page). I don't consent to this. The last time I tried to discuss content that has been removed (here). The discussion was not continued after the content was removed. My argument why I think it is important to include info to avoid misleading content, was completely ignored.

The Wikipedia approach is to discuss prior to removal, see here:

Wikipedia:Content removal

"When removing content from an article, whether it be a whole section or even just a single word, if the removal is likely to be opposed by one or more other editors, it is important to make sure there is clearly a consensus to remove the content. When in doubt, discuss prior to removal.

If you boldly make the removal, and it is then reverted by another editor, it is especially important that you discuss it prior to making a second removal."

I have shown willingness to discuss content, sources etc. and I am willing to implement changes and improvements based on your criticism an other editors comments. And I will continue to do so. Wikigrund (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

That is an essay. WP:ONUS is policy. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

It is not an essay. It does not contain my advice, opinions or personal views. I have summarized available information on the topic. If I made a mistake in my choice of words, that can be discussed and improved. I've already demonstrated that I'm open to criticism and willing to make edits based on feedback.

When I came to this page the section looked like this: Identification (21:00, 6 December 2024)

The section was not balanced at all. I criticized this on the talk page, but my comment was ignored. So, I researched two months and added relevant pit bull breed specific information concerning the topic (after the criticism that my information was not bit bull specific). What I added is not controversial and it is appropriate for the section. I summarized information from veterinarians, government departments, researchers, international kennel clubs, breed clubs etc.

(You make it sounds like I added my personal recipe for meatballs to a veganism article and claimed that cooking it makes everyone in your family a carnivore upon smelling it.) Wikigrund (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

How is it not balanced? It focuses on academic sources that mention pit bulls. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The section was not balanced because it only covered a specific aspect of the issue, giving it undue weight.

For example, the paragraph mentions DNA testing. I think it is relevant to include the view of the American Kennel Club that DNA-based ancestry testing can be unreliable. This makes it more balanced. Incidentally, the wording should be changed to clarify which DNA testing method was used in those studies.

The studies and articles primarily focus on the visual identification of mixed-breed dogs. However, there are obviously more methods available and used to determine pit bull breeds, pit bull types and pit bull mixes.

In one study they did visual identification from a photo and I would like to know how often it is actually used in practice (is it even relevant?). Canine specialists, such as certified dog trainers or breed assessors, interact with the dog directly, have the ability to touch the dog and observe its behavior.

I think additional information is appropriate and should not be omitted. Wikigrund (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

How is the Dec. 6 two-sentence version not balanced, Traum asks? It was too short, too summary, too inadequate for the enormous amounts of discussion given to the topic in real life. Millions of dollars have been spent on dubious scientific studies trying to "prove" you cannot identify a pit bull, lawfare to force whole industries to accept pit bulls as if they are no different than any other dog, and grants to shelters to "go no-kill" and adopt out pit bulls regardless of bite history. Two sentences is called not giving it due weight, in Wikipedia terms. I also think the new section is appropriate. It is well sourced, well organized and well-summarized. 17:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikianon3770617 (talk • contribs)

Too summary? Wikipedia is supposed to summarise. The rest of your comment is just conspiracy theory rubbish. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)