This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Unbiased6969 (talk | contribs) at 05:46, 26 May 2023 (→Canvassing from Reddit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:46, 26 May 2023 by Unbiased6969 (talk | contribs) (→Canvassing from Reddit)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Pit bull was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | ||||||||||||||||
_part_2.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
 | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
 | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
 | Arguments to avoid. Some common points of argument we often see here should be avoided:
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 13 as Talk:Pit bull/Archive 12 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
Breed related risk
I'm trying to understand this edit by NolanAlex (talk · contribs) (Welcome back, I see this was the first edit from this account in 12 years). The sentence from the article that's disputed is, Dog bite severity varies by the breed of dog, and studies have found that pit bull-type dogs have both the highest risk of biting and a tendency to produce the most severe injuries.
The first source for that is Essig et al. which says, Injuries from Pitbull's (sic) and mixed breed dogs were both more frequent and more severe....The high risk breeds had both a high rate of biting and caused significant injury.
and the second source is Taylor et al., that who wrote that The most known dog breeds that were involved in this study were pit bull and German shepherd breeds, which is consistent with the literature.19, 20, 21, 22
and those cites in Taylor represent four additional sources on the breed-related risk of pitbull ownership that can always be found and added to the article as well. Geogene (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- There are 2 components to the original wording "highest risk of biting" and "tendency to produce most severe injuries."
- Only the first reference discusses severity. It reports the following (figure 2 and figure 3). A higher number indicates greater severity, as measured by tissue damagae. I don't think the linked references supports the original wording of "most severe" since there were other breeds that were reported as more severe on average in the reference.
- Highest Severity
- 1. Mixed -- 4.2
- 2. Great Dane -- 4.0
- 3 (tie). St. Bernard 3.8
- 3 (tie). Pit Bull -- 3.8
- The 1st study discusses rates of reported bites to face. It found that pitbulls had a higher rate of reported bites to head and neck that were severe enough to require emergency room treatment other breeds. The 2nd study doesn't discuss rate only total number. It found that ~10% of reported bites were by pitbulls or pit mixes, and the vast majority were unknown breed (presumably mixed). I don't think the original wording of "highest risk of biting" (in all situations) is a good representation of the first study finding of highest rate of bites to head that were severe enough to require emergency room treatment. There have been other studies that found other breeds had a higher rates of bites in general (not just emergency room bites to head). An example is https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159108001147 , which found that pitbulls had an average rate of reported attempted bites to humans compared to other breeds and a lower rate than numerous other breeds.
- I believe my edited wording is a more accurate representation of the references. You quoted the references directly. An alternative would be to use a direct quotes from the references like this, rather than rewording. NolanAlex (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Temperament
This article only talks about pit bull dogs biting people and being aggressive. It does not discuss other aspects of pit bull temperament like the entries for other types of dogs do. Many pit bulls are loyal, loving, and caring dogs who are great with children and families. Some are docile. It would be great to have a more well-rounded discussion of temperament besides just the popular perception that they bite. 104.49.199.31 (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Unfortunately this page is routinely brigaded by an anti-Pit Bull hating group on Reddit. I would recommend double-checking sources and removing unreliable claims by yourself, as well as adding new sources, if you have the necessary expertise. People up on this discussion have pointed out that many sources on this article are unreliable.
- As well:
| Arguments to avoid. Some common points of argument we often see here should be avoided:
|
-- Queen of Wa, friend of Wei (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- "Many pit bulls are loyal, loving, and caring dogs who are great with children and families" Are there any statistics/sources for this? Aside from anecdotal evidence. 2800:A4:17B9:9600:CDEA:C2CD:A274:C23E (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue#Pedantry,_and_other_didactic_arguments
- Read the infobox you literally replied to as well.
- --Queen of Wa, friend of Wei (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Unlike other dogs, pit bulls are best known for being controversial, of course this article will focus on that, and in a way that's unlike all other dog articles. The WP:NPOV policy requires it, and this is not negotiable. (The guideline literally says,
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
) There's really no point in arguing about it on this page. The IP who started this thread is making a request for something that can't be granted because it's in conflict with Misplaced Pages's core policies. It probably would have been best to have ignored this thread. Or perhaps for one of you to have not reverted my deletion of it a couple of months ago, when it was obvious enough to me that it wasn't going to go anywhere useful. Geogene (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Unlike other dogs, pit bulls are best known for being controversial, of course this article will focus on that, and in a way that's unlike all other dog articles. The WP:NPOV policy requires it, and this is not negotiable. (The guideline literally says,
Canvassing from Reddit
Pro-pitbull editors are being recruited here, in violation of WP:CANVASS. Geogene (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately I’ve seen the anti-pit folk do that as well. It’s going to be hard to make this article neutral and transparent if both sides are brigading. Since every username is taken, I am Bob. (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Anti-pitbull editors have been recruited here and here and here and here , in violation of WP:CANVASS. Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we can call those instances you cited as "recruiting." All the examples you linked were from an anti-pitbull subreddit, but seemed to be legitimate discussions of Misplaced Pages content and perceived bias, not invitations for brigading.
- - Misplaced Pages Has Removed All Pre-2020 Dog Attack Fatalities
- - Asking for opinions about Misplaced Pages
- - This bullshit on Misplaced Pages
- - Systematic manipulation of Misplaced Pages article on pit bulls
- These posts all seem to be pointing out concerns about WP:NPOV policy violations, mostly having to do with removing dog attack statistics from Misplaced Pages pages. 172.91.86.10 (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hi random IP. It seems you failed to read any of the comments on those posts. Understandable if you are bias, but not very honest of you.Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
"The term was first used in 1927"
There are many records of the use of this term well before 1927 as we can see for example in "The Dog Fancier, v.14, 1905. Eugene Glass" and in subsequent years volumes like in "The Dog Fancier (Established 1891), Vol. 22, No. 4. Battle Creek, Mich., U.S.A., April, 1913". However, it is difficult to define when the term was first used. So it would be better not to mention a specific date. Adventurous36 (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Very interesting find, it seems the article may need tweaking. I checked page 46 in your second link, "winner of 3 pit battles", charming.
- The current source at "The term was first used in 1927" (that's WP:LEAD only btw, not good WP-writing) states
- "First Known Use 1927, in the meaning defined at sense 1" and sense 1 is
- "or pit bull terrier : a muscular, short-haired, stocky dog (such as an American pit bull terrier or American Staffordshire terrier) of any of several breeds or a hybrid with one or more of these breeds that was originally developed for fighting and is noted for strength, stamina, and tenacity"
- It seems to me that your 1913 source (can't tell on the 1905) is using the term in the same sense, but I'm not an expert. Per that source, I could go with something like "has been used since at least early 20th century." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Fwiw, here's a little info on The Dog Fancier: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- I changed the article like so . I ignored the 1905 source for now since I only see small snippets, but the new text fits anyway. It seems quite possible per that source that "pit bull" was used in the 19th century, but atm that's guessing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Updated to one from 1903. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
As A Symbol Bias
Are we going to talk about the bias in the Symbol? I mean tying pitbulls to white supremacists without also mentioning that
- "Strong cultural ties exist between pit bull dogs and the Black community. The same is true of the Latino community. Research undertaken here to investigate this claim suggests that people of color are perceived to be the most likely owner of this breed of dog."
Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- That may deserve a mention somewhere, but it's not clearly "symbol", is it? Also, I'm not sure what the source is, exactly, is it a dissertation per WP:SCHOLARSHIP? I'm guessing it's not by Ann Linder. Consider also articles like Breed-specific legislation and maybe Status dog. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also from your source, "Breed-specific legislation may be being used as a new form of redlining to keep minorities out of majority-white neighborhoods." That's interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Btw, I started the Symbol section and I didn't add anything by Ann Linder to it because I had no idea she existed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- The source is the Animal Law Review, and it is from Ann Linder. Not sure why you would doubt it was? Animal Law Review is a scholarly journal that focuses on legal issues related to animals. Depends on how your definition of symbol. The second definition of symbol is "a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract." I would definitely argue that there is sufficient evidence in history/media to show that pitbulls have been used as a symbol to represent the black communities pet ownership. Its not even really a debate as you can find many sources if you google "pit bulls black community".
- As for your comment about the racism behind BSL laws, its something widely argued and currently litigated in George County as I write this. Unbiased6969 (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, if it is Animal Law Review, does WP:RSSM apply here? Arguing "Strong cultural ties exist between..." = "Symbol" is far-fetched to me, the section as currently written is more literal, and I don't think it should stray from that. This bit however, seems more on-topic; " appeared in music videos and were featured as cultural symbols of “‘urban ghettos’ and ‘Afro-American lifestyles.’”31"
- On the wider angle, you could try starting a "Presence in different communities" or something like that section. Perhaps even a separate article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- The History-section has "...the type becoming a status symbol in American gang culture." Trying to expand on that is an option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Its a reliable source. They are the most respected publication in their field. You are comparing it to a student newspaper and not a scholarly journal, which it is more like. Check its wiki if you need more proof. Its a law journal.
- They're a symbol of the black community. You seem to have a definition of symbol that is narrower than it actually is. The pit bull is an Isomorphic Symbol of black culture. Symbols don't need to be pictures.
- The fact that the article has pit bulls as part of "American gang culture" is a not objective, and again appears to be written in a way to direct a reader to forming an opinion on pit bulls. Pit bulls are part of black culture and black culture is not gang culture... Gangs don't go around promoting pit bulls and selling them. Drugs/violence/guns are symbols of gang culture, not pit bulls. They are part of black culture, and in the past those were not differentiated. You don't hear about how gangs are pushing pit bulls onto people or killing people with pit bulls. You see rap videos with pit bulls in them, which society then associated rap videos to gangs because skin color.
- I can see room for creating a new section, but I think fixing the current is better addressed before adding more. Unbiased6969 (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also Lagunitas Brewing uses a pit bull as a logo for their company. However, logos are not symbols. And skinheads using a pit bull as a logo doesn't symbolize Pit bulls to white supremacy. The wiki article on symbols does a good job explaining what symbols are and what they do. There are also scholarly journals that address on the topic of symbolism. But basically, using an image as a logo doesn't make it a symbol. Millions of people have pit bulls tattooed on their skins and don't belong to supremacism groups because a pit bull is not a symbol of white supremacism. A specific image of a pit bull may be an identifying marker for a gang, but that doesn't make the pit bull a symbol. Unbiased6969 (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, WP says that. It may be correct. It doesn't seem awful, if someone objects when you use it in an article, you can discuss that then. I'm not clear on if Ann Linder is a student or not, "Legislative Policy Fellow" doesn't sound like a student to me, but here my ignorance kicks in. I disagree that logos are not symbols, it's a broad word, and logos fit quite reasonably in this section. ADL disagrees with you, pretty much: If you have a decent secondary source for the brewery having a pit-bull logo you can add it. Existing is not enough.
- I checked the cites at "American gang culture", and they support it (not the NYT), except the Humanity & Society doesn't actually say "American" (and UPI speaks of "ghetto youth", but the context is American), so there may be case for removing "American". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Her bio is publicly available here
- I disagree with symbols/icons bit, but I can get back to you on more about them. As for a source for Lagunitas, the founder of the company in his own words. Petey was a American Pitbull Terrier as mentioned in the Wiki Page.
- As for gang culture, another study that argues that pit bulls are linked to hip-hop culture, which is not gang culture. I think its best to describe that pit bulls have been exploited by gangs to guard illegal narcotics, and to intimidate and attack civilians, other criminals and police" But then remove that they're part of gang culture. There is insufficient evidence for it. There is much more evidence to show that they're part of urban culture. In fact, even citation 16 mentions hip-hop culture.
- Either way, I think there is sufficient evidence that Pit bulls are an isomorphic symbol for black pet ownership. The piece by Ann Linder provides a lot of evidence of such. If you don't agree its a symbol, then what about a new section to talk about pit bull ownership, or at the minimum mentioning it in BSL, which doesn't address anything about the link to racism and BSL? Just seems odd that a wiki page would link a dog to white supremacists ownership and not mention that they're perceived to be owned by minority communities too? Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not a student then. I found the same article on the beer, added it yesterday, and rearranged the Symbol-section a bit, adding Linder. I'm not sure there's insufficient evidence on gang culture, but I haven't looked further than this article. Gang/Hip-hop is not a contradiction, it can be both.
- "isomorphic symbol for black pet ownership" sounds WP:OR to me, and I think many readers would have to look up isomorphic. Pit bull ownership (or my above suggestion) could be a decent section, or "Pit bull ownership in the US" if that's what you end up writing. The article doesn't talk about white supremacists ownership. Since Linder writes about BSL, that would seem the default place to add something from her article. Consider adding something about pit bulls to Hip hop (culture). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Can it be both? Sure, but they're not mutually exclusive. If anything its blood sports that is tied to gangs. I mean, cock fighting is huge among gangs, but its not promoted in rap videos... its the rap videos, which is hip-hop culture that gives them the "gang image". Because lets face it, society did not differentiate much between them.
- Rather than add another section, I think it can be addressed through the BSL section? Rather than talk about hip-hop culture, it can be acknowledge that they're associated with POC which may have lead to a number of BSL laws being passed. Then mention a court case that is currently being litigated along with Linder's work. Should the court case prevail, then there is sufficient evidence to change that BSL laws were determined to be passed in at least one case for discriminatory reasons? Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- This source (Ann Linder's article) is known for its lack of historical detail. This is not a history paper. It's a public policy paper. Her affiliation is with the Animal Law and Policy Program at Harvard.
- The "Historical Background" section (pg 55) makes a mention of the pitbull being "America's Dog" at the beginning of the 20th century, and then jumps straight to the 1980s as the dog's supposed start of its association with POC communities. Even if this history extends farther back than the 1980s, this article makes no mention of that. PartyParrot42 (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- Where is this source known for its lack of historical detail? Or known at all? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- This article well-known for being cited by anti-Breed-specific legislation (BSL) groups for its supposed illustrations of connections between pitbulls and people of color, and its possible implications of discrimination in the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Organizations such as the Best Friends Animal Society lean heavily on this single article to imply that BSL implies racial discrimination, and therefore would require rollbacks of BSL.
- But my main point is that if we were to include the history of the pitbull and its association with symbols, this is not a good historical source.
- - It first mentions pitbulls as "America's Dog." We don't actually include that in this article anywhere, so if there is a better source that might be something to add to the article.
- - Second, the history section repeats the "nanny dog" myth, citing a Sports Illustrated article about Michael Vick as its source. The source does not explain the origin of the term.
- - Third, it then skips a handful of decades to (late) 1980s history, where it finally touches on the topic of POC as owners of the dog, citing a source which then cites several news articles from that time, including a New York Times article and one Rolling Stone, both from 1987.
- tl;dr this source is mostly about an experiment which shows a perceived association between Black and Latino owners of pitbulls (page 64). The history section (page 55), which has the most detail about symbolic use of pitbulls over time, is weak and has a lot of gaps. PartyParrot42 (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Ok. If there are other opinions on this source, I'll guess we'll hear them. You seem to have dug deep. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- If the source contains the "nanny dog" myth, then it's unreliable. Geogene (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Ok. If there are other opinions on this source, I'll guess we'll hear them. You seem to have dug deep. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Where is this source known for its lack of historical detail? Or known at all? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
US Centricity
This article is written with the tone that Misplaced Pages, at least in English language, is an American website. The angle of the writing is about the American history of these breeds despite saying that they originated from the United Kingdom. 2A02:6B64:F05C:0:995:C80C:6B0E:487D (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hello 2A02, I thought you deserved some kind of reply. Yep, there's a lot of US in the article. This may or may not be because the editors who have bothered to work on it find this interesting, or that the sources they found when looking mostly focused on the US. It may be that Pit bull is to some extent mostly an American "thing", and if so, the article should reflect that. What you can do is to gather your WP:RS on non-US Pit bull stuff and start editing. You have to WP:REGISTER and become WP:AUTOCONFIRMed first, but that's quite doable. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Notable pit bulls
The inclusion of Nipper in this list seems incorrect. Most sources (including current Misplaced Pages pages) point to either a Jack Russell Terrier or Fox Terrier.
Current sources in the pit bull article include:
- 1st source (ProQuest): "We can tell you that according to his owner, British artist Francis Barraud, who acquired Nipper in 1884, the dog was a fox terrier."
- 2nd source (The Pit Bull Life: A Dog Lover's Companion): "While some call Nipper a pit bull , no one knows the breed of the real dog he was based on." I tried to verify this in the book, but there is no citation in the main text, and the bibliography has no mention of Nipper.
- 3rd source (The New Yorker): "The dog sitting attentively and eternally next to that old-fashioned phonograph horn on RCA Victor records is a pooch named Nipper, who looks to me like a fox terrier or something close."
So 2/3 references listed in the current article do not validate the claims made. The second one might, but I was unable to verify it in its bibliography.
Current Misplaced Pages articles referencing Nipper:
- His Master's Voice: "which depicted a Jack Russell Terrier dog named Nipper"
- Nipper: "He was likely a mixed-breed dog, although most early sources suggest that he was a Smooth Fox Terrier, or perhaps a Jack Russell Terrier, or possibly "part Bull Terrier."" I looked into the "part Bull Terrier" source (The Encyclopedia of dog breeds), but it didn't have a citation for where it states "It was based on his dog, Nipper, who was partly Bull Terrier"
Most of these sources, including two in the current pit bull article, indicate Nipper being primarily a terrier, usually a Fox Terrier or a Jack Russell Terrier. There may be some open questions whether he had a small mix of pit bull as part of his breed, but the sources cited point to Nipper as chiefly a terrier.
A note on edits:
The pit bull page edit history shows that the original insertion of Nipper to this article occurs as the following text: "Nipper, a bull terrier mixbreed, is the dog in Francis Barraud's painting His Master's Voice." The citation for this text is listed as Radio Canada International, but this source references Misplaced Pages (doesn't list exact page), which I believe may be a WP:CIRCULAR issue. Note also that the entry on Nipper for the pit bull article page has been added and removed multiple times. Rather than perpetuate this edit war, I'd prefer we resolve this issue on the Talk page and then make a decision on inclusion. My personal conclusion based on the majority of sources is that Nipper was either a terrier or terrier-dominant mix, and therefore does not belong on this page. PartyParrot42 (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- The Newsday/PQ reads "There has been some controversy about whether Nipper,the famous RCA dog peering quizzically into the horn of a phonograph, was a so-called pit bull... Also, of the several bull terrier and fox terrier club spokesmen and breeders we spoke to, only one - a bull terrier club president - said the dog was a pit bull. Everyone else agreed that Nipper was a fox terrier." That supports the WP-article text, like "The Pit Bull Life". The New Yorker is for the "commonly seen" part, illustrating that people look at Nipper and see different things, but may be a bit redundant. Ping to @Atsme and @Oknazevad if you're interested.
- As a general note, there is no demand on WP for WP:RS to cite their sources, or that the sources they cite cite their sources, etc, we have to stop at some point. Don't dig too much, not for WP-purposes anyway. Previous discussion and more sources at Talk:Pit_bull/Archive_11#Nipper. IMO, the sources used in this WP-article supports "at times referred to as a pit bull", this is a view that has been noted, so per the sources (there are others) and WP:PROPORTION, my view is that the sentence is ok, and fwiw, it's a very notable dog. Reasonable people may disagree. Per previous discussions (yep, there's more), I think a WP:RFC may be the next step to attempt a consensus on this.
- On current WP-articles with Nipper, they have to take care of themselves per WP:OTHERCONTENT. What is WP:PROPORTION here may not be in the Nipper article, or it may be. On the Radio Canada, looking at the other pics I think "The famous listening dog *Nipper* the symbol of RCA records, Deutsche Gramophon and others was a pit bull, or pit bull mix, possibly with a Jack Russel © wikipaedia" is meant to refer to where they got the image. The "© wikipaedia" as written doesn't make much sense (neither WP or Commons has any copyright on that pic), but it's what I think. And of course, the source is not used in this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- For the Wikipedians, text under discussion:
- Nipper, a mongrel at times referred to as a pit bull, though commonly seen as a non pit bull-type terrier, is the dog in Francis Barraud's painting His Master's Voice.
References
- Richterman, Anita (1 September 1987). "Problem Line: - ProQuest". Newsday - via ProQuest. Retrieved 11 September 2022.
- Franklin, Deirdre; Lombardi, Linda (22 November 2016). The Pit Bull Life: A Dog Lover's Companion. The Countryman Press. ISBN 978-1-58157-504-0.
- Roger, Angell (2011-11-30). "The Wrong Dog". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2022-09-12.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- I've read through the relevant talk pages on the Nipper issue:
- - Talk:Pit bull/Archive 9
- - Talk:Pit bull/Archive 10
- - Talk:Pit bull/Archive 11
- If you'd like to include the phrasing about Nipper possibly being a pit bull, I agree with the comments stating that per WP:ONUS, we'd need much better sources for this, and those have not been provided, even in historic versions of the Pit bull page. WP:NPOV thus requires us to follow the majority of legitimate sources stating Nipper's more likely terrier background.
- 1. Richterman, Anita is a very brief source, and does not support the claim of Nipper as a pit bull. It specifically states Nipper is a Fox Terrier, and that as far as dissenting opinions, "only one - a bull terrier club president - said the dog was a pit bull", implying this is not a common view
- 2. "The Pit Bull Life" honestly seems like a coffee table book. My opinion on this source remains unchanged. I'm furthermore convinced that, "While some call Nipper a pit bull..." falls under MOS:WEASEL
- 3. New York Times article: This source makes no mention of any pit bull lineage for Nipper anywhere in the article. @User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång mentioned "The New Yorker is for the "commonly seen" part, illustrating that people look at Nipper and see different things, but may be a bit redundant.". This idea does not appear anywhere in that article.
- This opinion (Nipper most likely being a terrier, and Pit bull claims being unsupported) is in line with statements from both User:Atsme and User:Oknazevad in the archived Talk pages. Judging by the quality of sources, I think at this point an WP:RFC would be overkill and not add anything. It's pretty clear that the Nipper/pit bull claim is at best weakly supported, and at worst is a purely speculative opinion, and should therefore be removed from this article.
- PartyParrot42 (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree that for this article/section we need better sources. It's pretty much a pop-cult section, not a WP:BLP. There's books and uni-press (uni-press in the archives). We don't say Nipper is a Pit bull, we say sources have called him that, and they have, that is not weakly supported. WEASEL say "views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source." They are. This isn't scientific fact, it's eye of the beholder stuff.
- On Angell, in that article the author says Nipper looks to him like a fox terrier or something close, and that others have called him a Jack Russell, that is people looking at Nipper and seeing different things. Speculations about Nipper are speculative yes, but WP:RS are allowed to speculate all they want.
- The sentence falls under editorial discretion, there is an element of WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT here, like a discussion about what WP:LEADIMAGE is best for an article. We'll see if more editors can be arsed to have an opinion. An RFC can, sometimes, help reaching some sort of conclusion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- When in doubt, leave it out. I got think there's enough to include the famous pup. Misplaced Pages isn't here to be a clearing house of under-informed speculation, even if that speculation is in reliable sources. oknazevad (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- And what makes this speculation under-informed is you declaring it such. There is no doubt the pup has been called a pit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- The speculation is that on the sources. We don't have to include all speculative material in sources if it's not the broad conclusion of outside sources. Plus we still run into the WP:WEASEL issue with the self-contradictory phrasing. Notably, nowhere in the actual Nipper article calls him a pit bull. So the inclusion here is undue weight given to a common error. Because that's what it is. An error. We don't need to point out other people's mistakes. That just makes us look silly. oknazevad (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- And what makes this speculation under-informed is you declaring it such. There is no doubt the pup has been called a pit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- When in doubt, leave it out. I got think there's enough to include the famous pup. Misplaced Pages isn't here to be a clearing house of under-informed speculation, even if that speculation is in reliable sources. oknazevad (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- PartyParrot42 (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
| Sources |
|---|
|
Nomination of Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Note that I have proposed Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon for deletion, due to WP:BK It is perfectly fine as a source for articles, but does not meet the notability standards required for its own page.
PartyParrot42 (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
References
- Dickey, Bronwen (2016). Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. ISBN 9780307961761.
"pit bulls are mixed breeds"
This diff and edit summary looks like one editor's original research . If we have editors edit warring, without sources, that pitbulls aren't descended from fighting dogs, then this is going to have to go to ArbCom. I don't want that, but there's been enough WP:RGW disruption in this topic area. Geogene (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- And there is actual DNA evidence for this here. See Figure 1, Figure 4, that show Staffordshire terriers are bulldog/mastiffs with Irish terriers mixed in. And this source quote from the paper's text:
For example, when dog fighting was a popular form of entertainment, many combinations of terriers and mastiff or bully-type breeds were crossed to create dogs that would excel in that sport. In this analysis, all of the bull and terrier crosses map to the terriers of Ireland and date to 1860-1870. This coincides perfectly with the historical descriptions that, though they do not clearly identify all breeds involved, report the popularity of dog contests in Ireland and the lack of stud book veracity, hence undocumented crosses, during this era of breed creation (Lee, 1894).
So hopefully that will put this to rest. I find it unreasonable to demand "DNA evidence" for uncontroversial, pedantic things. Geogene (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- And there is actual DNA evidence for this here. See Figure 1, Figure 4, that show Staffordshire terriers are bulldog/mastiffs with Irish terriers mixed in. And this source quote from the paper's text: