Revision as of 23:33, 7 February 2022 editUnbiased6969 (talk | contribs)397 edits →Breed specific legislation needs updating← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:38, 7 February 2022 edit undoGeogene (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,586 edits →Breed specific legislation needs updating: If a reliable source cited Dogsbite.org for a fact, that means that Dogsbite.org is probably reliable for that fact. It doesn't discredit the reliable source, it makes dogsbite reliable. ~~~~Next edit → | ||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
:::Hmm, A brand new account, created just for this discussion, taking a very partisan position in a controversial article, signing its posts. That's interesting. ] (]) 23:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC) | :::Hmm, A brand new account, created just for this discussion, taking a very partisan position in a controversial article, signing its posts. That's interesting. ] (]) 23:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC) | ||
::::Are you going to argue the subject matter or not? Seems like you are more interested in silencing anything you disagree with than arguing facts. Additionally, why is[REDACTED] using a time article that's source is Dogsbite.org? https://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-pit-bull-attack-of-a-little-girl/ Source 11. All its sources are advocacy groups, which casts doubt in the articles credibility. ] (]) 23:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC) | ::::Are you going to argue the subject matter or not? Seems like you are more interested in silencing anything you disagree with than arguing facts. Additionally, why is[REDACTED] using a time article that's source is Dogsbite.org? https://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-pit-bull-attack-of-a-little-girl/ Source 11. All its sources are advocacy groups, which casts doubt in the articles credibility. ] (]) 23:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC) | ||
:::::If a reliable source cited Dogsbite.org for a fact, that means that Dogsbite.org is probably reliable for that fact. It doesn't discredit the reliable source, it makes dogsbite reliable. ] (]) 23:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:38, 7 February 2022
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 |
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. |
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= 11
as Talk:Pit bull/Archive 10 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 17 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaitlynn1015.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC) This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brianne202 (article contribs).
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Oliviapalazzi.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Relationship with race
Pit bull ownership is popularly associated with black people (in contrast with other breeds, such as the Golden Retriever, which is associated with white people).
Perhaps just "In the US", or something? Benjamin (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Found another source. Benjamin (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- The second last paragraph of the history section already says
the type becoming a status symbol in American gang culture
, perhaps add a sentence to that paragraph saying something likeA 2020 study conducted in the United States by the University of California, Irvine found that when asked what varieties of dog black people are likely to own, a majority of people guesses pit bulls or Rottweilers.
(I filled out a few more parameters in the citation) The second source conducted a poll using an American Pit Bull Terrier, whilst representative there is a distinction. - I oppose having a separate section and I strongly oppose adding this to other breed pages, except the Husky none of the other breeds/types listed are American and all are incredibly common throughout the world. Cavalryman (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC).
- The second last paragraph of the history section already says
@Geogene:, to respond to your edit summary, I just happened to link that particular post that mentioned it, but the survey itself wasn't about that in particular, as I understand. I agree that one particular campaign isn't especially relevant, but that wasn't what I was talking about in the first place. Benjamin (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Found another source: Benjamin (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's interesting that Guenther calls out the racism of animal shelters, but basically it's an opinion piece. She cites Bronwen Dickey's "Pitbulls: the Battle over an American Icon" which we discussed previously and found not to be a reliable source. Geogene (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
References
- Tesler, Michael (December 15, 2020). "Raphael Warnock's Dog Ads Cut Against White Voters' Stereotypes Of Black People".
- Tesler, Michael (December 15, 2020). "Raphael Warnock's Dog Ads Cut Against White Voters' Stereotypes Of Black People". FiveThirtyEight. ABC News Internet Ventures. Retrieved September 23, 2021.
Notable pit bulls
Would the notable pit bulls section work better as a bulleted list? I think so, because there is only one sentence about each dog and the last two entries especially look like they were written as if they were intended to be bullet points. Fyndegil (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- I took a look, and it does seem it would flow better as a bulleted list. Minkai (see where I screwed up) 23:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- This is the "pop-cult" section, and my experience is that bulleted lists tends to encourage people to add unsourced/badly sourced crap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Look at it from the reader's persepective. Instead of a neat list, you have an unappealing wall of text that is tedious to read. Then again, a bunch of would also detract from the quality of the article, both aesthetically and in terms worth to the encyclopedia. Minkai(see where I screwed up) 16:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that's quite a wall of text just yet, but you have a point. How about century-paragraphs? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: What is a century-paragraph? Minkai(see where I screwed up) 17:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I added paragraphs that happened to divide the dogs by century. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Awesome, Gråbergs Gråa Sång! Thank you so much! The paragraphs-by-century method makes the section easier to read and doesn't invited poorly sourced content. I'm glad we were able to defuse this conflict before it began. Minkai(see where I screwed up) 18:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Looks better now. I'm glad the community was able to come up with a solution better than mine. Fyndegil (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2021
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the sentence “ Pit bull-type dogs have a controversial reputation as pets both in the United States and internationally, due to their history in dog fighting, the number of high-profile attacks documented in the media over decades, and their proclivity to latching on while biting” the “and their proclivity for latching on while biting” should be deleted, as the source cited makes absolutely no claims on that topic. Frankenmouse (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Frankenmouse (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Not done: See under "Dog attack risk": "Pit bulls are known for their tenacity and refusal to release a bite, even in the face of great pain." To me, this is equivalent to "proclivity to latching on while biting". General Ization 09:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- I moved that citation to the portion of that sentence that it supports. The statement is in the lede, so it summarizes the body of the article (and does not require inline citations); the portion you are objecting to is supported by citations in the body of the article. General Ization 09:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Did the pit bull lobby write this article?
Sorry, but this article reads as though it was written by the pit bull lobby. The CDC has documented the fact that pit bulls kill more people than any other breed. And that was back in the 1980s and 1990s when pit bulls were much less common. Other recent studies have documented the fact that bites from pit bulls are more likely to result in severe injury and death. I was hoping to see a more balanced discussion here. Furthermore, the AMVA is literally funded by the pit bull lobby. Citing actually studies would be better. Let's face it, pit bulls kill 300 people every decade in the United States. There is no reason to try to hide this basic fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:5B81:F80:41E7:D398:B919:381A (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2021
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggest linking text "American Pit Bull Terrier" in first paragraph to existing wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/American_Pit_Bull_Terrier Chpatton013 (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, disregard this post. I was looking at the second instance of "American Pit Bull Terrier", and didn't realize that the first instance was properly linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chpatton013 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- No apologies necessary. Merry Christmas. Cavalryman (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC).
Breed specific legislation needs updating
I updated the Breed specific legislation portion since the first line said that there were only 2 revisions of BSL. This is false since there's been at least 64 municipality repeals since 2018. I think this recent trend of BSL being repealed and outlawed in the US should be noted, there hasn't been any new BSL enacted since 2018 that I know of. Another user keeps claiming that the source I used (pitbullinfo.org) was biased since it is a pro pit bull website and keeps undoing my edits. I understand the concern, but the page I linked links to confirmation for all 64 repeals, usually local news articles. There is no better compilation of news articles on repeals, the website keeps the list up to date as well always sourcing the new additions. At least 64 BSL repeals in the US since 2018 is a well documented fact and not up for debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazdeviloo7 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't clear that pitbullinfo.org is a reliable source for anything in Misplaced Pages. If pitbullinfo.org is reliable as some kind of news aggregator, then dogsbite.org should also be unquestionably reliable. Also, some of these edits tried introduce POV wording, changing
Widely reported pit bull attacks have resulted in
toWidely publicized pit bull attacks have often driven the enactment of
and replaced journalistic sources (eg, denver.cbslocal.com) with advocacy group sourcing (eg, Ohio Animal Advocates) . It would also seem to worsen the article's focus on U.S. politics. For example, what about the new pitbull ban that comes into effect in Taiwan next month? In fact, if these dogs are so wonderful, why do so many countries around the world ban them? Geogene (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)- How is a link to a website that counts and links to a local news story for the jurisdiction of every pitbull repeal not credible? Dogsbite.org is definitely not credible, and I can explain why. This source is only talking about laws that were passed/repealed. This is objective fact. Either a law was or was not repealed and there is no bias as to the matter. Dogsbite.org is a blog where a user unfamiliar with the actual story makes a presumption of the breed, or relies on the opinion of a journalist who did not confirm a breed by genetic testing. There are countless examples showing that breed identification by looks is highly unreliable, so why are we comparing apples to oranges here? I agree, linking all 64 municipalities would be ideal, but do you really want 64 tags at the end of a sentence or just one?Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, A brand new account, created just for this discussion, taking a very partisan position in a controversial article, signing its posts. That's interesting. Geogene (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Are you going to argue the subject matter or not? Seems like you are more interested in silencing anything you disagree with than arguing facts. Additionally, why is[REDACTED] using a time article that's source is Dogsbite.org? https://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-pit-bull-attack-of-a-little-girl/ Source 11. All its sources are advocacy groups, which casts doubt in the articles credibility. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- If a reliable source cited Dogsbite.org for a fact, that means that Dogsbite.org is probably reliable for that fact. It doesn't discredit the reliable source, it makes dogsbite reliable. Geogene (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Are you going to argue the subject matter or not? Seems like you are more interested in silencing anything you disagree with than arguing facts. Additionally, why is[REDACTED] using a time article that's source is Dogsbite.org? https://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-pit-bull-attack-of-a-little-girl/ Source 11. All its sources are advocacy groups, which casts doubt in the articles credibility. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, A brand new account, created just for this discussion, taking a very partisan position in a controversial article, signing its posts. That's interesting. Geogene (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- How is a link to a website that counts and links to a local news story for the jurisdiction of every pitbull repeal not credible? Dogsbite.org is definitely not credible, and I can explain why. This source is only talking about laws that were passed/repealed. This is objective fact. Either a law was or was not repealed and there is no bias as to the matter. Dogsbite.org is a blog where a user unfamiliar with the actual story makes a presumption of the breed, or relies on the opinion of a journalist who did not confirm a breed by genetic testing. There are countless examples showing that breed identification by looks is highly unreliable, so why are we comparing apples to oranges here? I agree, linking all 64 municipalities would be ideal, but do you really want 64 tags at the end of a sentence or just one?Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)