Talk:Pit bull/Archive 1

Untitled
The fact that something kills many people each year does not empirically qualify it as a "public danger". Cars (for example) kill many, many more people than pit bulls every year, and yet cars are somehow not considered a "public danger". What constitutes a "public danger" is purely a judgement call on the part of the people who are writing the laws that outlaw things they consider to be public dangers. There is no objective criteria for "public danger". The statement, 'Pit bulls present a public danger' is a matter of opinion and not a fact (however well supported that opinion may be.) Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I have re-inserted "perceived". -kwertii


 * Complete nonsense. Anything that kills people is a "public danger": no ifs, buts or maybes. Sure, cars kill people too (in fact more people than pit bulls, though of course there are many more cars). Does that mean that cars are a "public danger". Of course it does. That too is an empirical fact. If you wish to insert a statement to that effect into the Car article, go right ahead. Please stop removing verifiable, known facts from this entry under the false pretence that it is "NPOV". Tannin

As you well know, if I added the line "Cars are a public danger." to the car article, people would just assume it was vandalism and remove it, because the statement is so patently absurd (despite its literal truth for some definition of "public danger"). We have a disconnect here. If I say, "Guns are dangerous." this is very superficially true, given the generally accepted definitions of the terms involved. Very few people, if any, would disagree with the statement, "guns are dangerous." On the other hand, if I say, "Guns are a public danger", suddenly LOTS of people will disagree, because the additional word "public" dramatically changes the meaning of the sentence. We are no longer considering whether the gun in and of itself is "dangerous", but rather whether guns constitutes a public danger, which is an entirely different question. In the UK and Japan, they've decided that guns do, in fact, constitute a public danger, whereas in the USA, many, many people disagree. If I went into the gun article and inserted "Guns are a public danger.", they would remove it immediately, not because it is patently obvious, but because it is patently not NPOV. Many, many people disagree. Likewise, in most areas, pit bulls are not illegal. In some areas, they are. Obviously, there is some dispute over whether pit bulls constitute a public danger, or this difference would not exist. Therefore, in order to present the situation from a NPOV, we cannot pretend like everyone generally acknowledges and agrees that "pit bulls constitute a public danger", because not everybody does. Yes, granted, they kill a few people every year. Guns kill a lot more. For the reasons outlined above, inserting "Guns are a public danger" into gun would not work. The same logic applies in this case. For NPOV, we need the 'perceived'. -kwertii

All pit bulls are sturdy, strong, tenacious, and courageous. - nonsense. It's going to be deleted. -- Zoe

But guns are a public danger. There is no debate whatever on that issue. The debate concerns the argument that the public danger presented by guns (or cars, pit bulls, & etc.) is compensated for by the public good they provide. There are no grounds to argue that pit bull terriers are not a public danger as the fact that they kill and maim people on a regular basis is beyond dispute. Tannin

Just a quick note to say that my browser on this machine, for reasons best known to itself, has taken to logging me out today, and that the 203.208.x.x changes are mine. Tannin


 * Look, repeating over and over "Pit bulls are an empirical public danger. This is a FACT F A C T. Stop trying to deny it" isn't exactly encyclopedia level logical debate. Please either come up with some kind of logical reasoning for your reversions (besides, "I say so, and any sane person agrees with me"), or stop reverting it. Yes, pit bulls kill people. No, this does not ipso facto make pit bulls a "public danger". Humans and cars and guns each kill far, far more people every year than pit bulls. Should we add a "Humans are a public danger" line, too? -kwertii

If you wish. The truth of your assertion (that cars are dangerous) is undisputable.

My reasoning as per request:


 * 1) Pit bulls kill and mutilate people regularly.
 * 2) Danger is "exposure or vulnerability to harm or risk."
 * 3) Mutilation and/or death is  generally regarded as "harm"
 * 4) Therefore we can conclude that the cause of the deaths and mutilations is indeed a danger.

Tannin


 * This line of reasoning does not, however, establish that pit bulls, as a breed (which is the subject of this article), are the cause of this danger. - Hephaestos


 * exactly. The fact that some pit bulls kill and mutilate people does not imply that all pit bulls kill and mutilate people. The vast majority of extant pit bulls have never killed or mutilated a person. And while you have established that some pit bulls -- those who kill/mutilate people -- are dangerous, you have failed to address the issue of how they constitute a public danger. (see my paragraph above for more on the differences between "guns are dangerous" and "guns are a public danger.")
 * The behavior of a minority of individuals does not provide rational basis for labelling the whole group. Like I said, humans kill and mutilate far more people every year than pit bulls do. Should we add a line to the human article such as "Humans are a public danger"? -kwertii


 * Please read the above. It is made abundantly clear, and expressed in simple language. Tannin

Again, simply repeating "it's a fact, deal with it" does not serve to make it a fact. The statement, "pit bulls constitute a public danger" is an opinion, and not a fact. Thus, it is not NPOV. -kwertii
 * I think the issue here is #1 above -- that pit bulls regularly harm individuals. I know nothing about dogs in general, or pit bulls specifically, but I think it best to know exactly what the disagreement is.  I think in this case it is whether or not pit bulls regularly "kill and mutilate people".  Argue on whether or not this is true, and a NPOV article will result. (in theory)
 * As I said, I have little knowledge in this area, but I would feel remiss in not pointing out my best friend's girlfriend's dog, who is a pit bull. He is incredibly affectionate, if a bit rambunctious, and his tail has a tendency to knock over beer bottles like you wouldn't believe.  I can also recognize that he is tremendously protective of his owner, to the point of barking and growling if I move in her direction suddenly (though he responds to his owner's orders of standing down).  He's never attacked anyone.  Of course, she is also an animal lover and works at a kennel, and knows more than most about how to train dogs, so he might not be a great example.  I just wanted to point out that at least one pit bull is not threatening in the slightest and I would object to an article that automatically classifies him as a public danger. Tuf-Kat

Nevertheless, Tuff-Kat, he is a public danger. He could maim or kill a member of the public one day, and that is what the word "danger" means. I too am a public danger - after all, I could go off my head tommorow and strangle someone. Or you. Or the guy over the road with the red car - we are all public dangers to some degree or other.

Danger means "risk of harm" (look it up), and anything that presents a risk of harm to the public - an APBT, or you, or me, or the cars we drive, or whatever - all these things are by definition public dangers. Meteors are a public danger - as I recall, on average, one person a year gets killed by a meteor. It is not possible to debate these things - at least not short of claiming that meteors are imaginary and the whole thing is a hoax, or that APBT deaths are not caused by APBTs, or something equally ridiculous.

Obviously, there is room to discuss the extent of that danger, to report different views and cite appropriate evidence. It may be that the danger presented by APBTs is if fact quite minor. (Most unlikely, given the evidence, but possible.) However, that makes no difference at all to the truth of the statement that APBTs are a public danger: it is an agument about how dangereous they are - it is not, and cannot be, an argument to say that they are not dangerous at all.

If contributors want to say that they are a severe public danger or a minor one, and cite evidence to support whichever view, by all means. But it is not possible to claim that they are not a public danger at all: we know that APBTs kill people on a regular basis. We know that APBTs are a fairly uncommon breed in Australia, and yet they have killed four out of the last seven people to die of dog attack, and mutilated many more. I'll leave it to an American to report on the US figures - but if there is another attempt to censor relevant factual information from this entry - i.e., remove the evidence of APBT deaths in Australia - then it will have to regarded as a form of vandalisim. Tannin 07:41 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree that pit bulls are inherently more dangerous than most other animals and I most importantly agree that the different views of the dangerousness of the animal should be described. I have no doubt that if I threatened (in a physically obvious way) an intent to harm my friend's girlfriend, I would find her dog doing god knows what to my innocent body.  The article should not communicate that pit bulls are an irredeemable public danger (which I can't quite get if the article ever claimed or not) because this is not necessarily true -- better to claim that this group or that makes varying claims about who has the legal and/or moral right to own a pit bull and do whatever with it.  As long as the article does not claim that my friend's dog is a bloodthirsty murderer, I will be fine. Tuf-Kat


 * That sounds reasonable to me, TK. I don't imagine that anyone thinks that every single APBT is a murder just waiting to happen. On the other hand, I don't imagine that there is anyone much who would claim that an APBT is less likely to harm a person than, say, a Labrador. Tannin


 * Tannin, your claim that "4 out of the 7 dog attack fatalities in recent years have been inflicted by American pit bull terriers" is fairly specific and should be easy to cite. Could you please provide a source for this either here or on the article page?  The reason I'm confused is that according to, of the last 11 human deaths in Australia caused by dogs, zero were caused by APBTs. -º¡º


 * Well-known fact. Multiple sources. Including the Brisbane Courier Mail, the Melbourne Age, and Dr Hugh Worth, prominent vetrinarian, and national presidant of the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE RELEVANT, FACTUAL INFORMATION FROM ARTICLES. This is VANDALISM. Tannin 23:21 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)


 * By the way, citing the pit bull owners association on dog bite deaths is like citing the NRA on shootings: a deeply biased and suspect source. Tannin


 * Tannin, please do not accuse me of vandalism, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. I initially deleted the "four out of seven" quote because my attempt to verify it instead turned up information that conflicted with it.


 * Based on your message above, I did the following Google searches:


 * ("Brisbane Courier Mail" "pit bull")
 * ("Melbourne Age" "pit bull")
 * ("Hugh Worth" "pit bull")
 * ("RSPCA" "pit bull" fatalities)
 * ("pit bull" "four out of seven")


 * ("pit bull" "4 out of 7")
 * ("pit bull" "four out of the last seven")
 * ("pit bull" "4 out of the last 7")


 * None of these searchs, nor any other search I have done, has provided a citation for your "four out of seven" statement. I am not saying you are lying, I am not saying that there isn't a source out there, I am saying that I cannot find it, despite having looked for it very hard.  If you will please locate a reference, then we can cite the source and the statement.  Until then, this appears too disputed to just accept as a fact based upon your personal assertion. -º¡º

Of course pit-bulls are dangerous. Cars don't choose to attack people. Pit bulls do, which is why is it now the law in a growing number of judisdictions that pit bulls always be muzzled and on a lead when in a public space. In Ireland, pit bulls are officially described as one of the most dangerous breeds of dog. Many housing complexes that allow animals ban pit bulls. Animal welfare groups actively discourage people keeping a breed that the ISPCA has called 'dangerous'. JtdIrL 00:27 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

The Melbourne Age is a newspaper, as is the Brisbane Courier Mail. Dr Wirth talks on radio - you can't link to paper or radio waves. Nevertheless, I'll try to find an on-line ref as well. Please stop censoring valid and relevant information. Tannin 02:00 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

I like the new wording. I would like to see a better source than that piece from "The Age" for that statistic. It's an op-ed piece, is heavily biased (which is ok, since that's what op-ed pieces are for), and it offers no source for that statistic... perhaps a somewhat more neutral source here? -kwertii

Whooah there! This is The Age we are talking about here: sure, I don't always agree with them either, but it almost universally regarded as the highest quality newspaper in Australia. It has won numerous "fair reporting" awards, and is generally ranked as one of the best five or ten papers anywhere in the world. (The Manchester Guardian tends to get #1, the Age has been #2 several times. I think the Washington Post is up there too, though maybe I'm getting it mixed up with the New York Times. If you think that that makes it too left-wing, a similar thing appeared in the Brisbane Courier Mail which, as one of Rupert Murdoch's rags, is anything but left-wing.)

Where is this "heavy bias"? Is it "biased" to value human life over the wish of a small minority of anti-social people to breed dangerous animals? In any case, there is ample evidence from other sources to say the same sort of thing from other parts of the world as well: the Canadian Safety Council for one example, the USA for another, where Pit Bulls account for 25% of fatalaties and yet only 1% of the canine population, and so on. Tannin

Facts should not be ignored. If you have a source for the 25%-1% statistic, I highly encourage you to add it to the article.


 * His 25% source is misattributed to the HSUS when it was actually a study done by the CDC, and the correct number from that study is closer to 20%. The 1% figure is complete conjecture, although it is repeated several places on the internet.  To quote from the only scientific source I've found " It is important that we know not only the percentage of bites from a given breed but also the total number of that breed in the general canine population and the amount of time the dog spends around humans. Such denominator data are unavailable."  His four out of seven figure remains unattributed.  He did find a newspaper that reported it, but we still don't know the source of the figures.  -º¡º


 * Three seperate sources, actually: the Age, the Courier Mail and Dr Hugh Worth. It's not a contested figure. Tannin


 * Tannin, you make me wonder if we are even speaking the same language. It is indeed a contested figure, you know that since I found at least one page that contests it.  And despite you saying things like "Age, Courier Mail, and Dr Hugh Worth", we still don't know the source of the figure. -º¡º


 * Sorry, my language was imprecise. I should have said "contested by any trustworthy parties without a self-interested axe to grind". The pit bull owners' association doesn't count. Nor, for that matter, should a pit bull attack survivor. Neither is an impartial witness.


 * Further, it is obvious that the vagueness of the 1% figure is irrelevant to the point that pit bulls contribute far more than there share of deaths and injuries. The figure could be 'ten times too low, and it would still indicate that APBTs are twice as likely to kill as other breeds. Nevertheless, I'd like to see the figure tied down more firmly before including this particular bit of evidence in the entry as a matter of fact. It shod, however, be reported as a viewpoint, and attributed to a suitable source. Tannin


 * Hi Tannin. You and I both know that there are all sorts of ways to spin statistics to make a point, so shouldn't we always look carefully at the source of data before we accept it.  And isn't that especially true when an issue has a lot of passion associated with it?  Anyhow, the true source of the figures you attributed to the HSUS appears to be the CDC and can be found here .  Since you are Australian I'll point out that the CDC is a US Federal agency who is generally considered to be accurate, but they also tend to get involved in the politics of issues.  In other words, their science is good but their motivations can be questioned.  Anyhow, you can see that I've put in the legwork to get to the heart of some of the "best" US data on this issue that there is (even though there are critics of this data and the conclusions drawn).  If we want to use Australian data, can't we at least track it back to the original source instead of just believing it because it was in the paper?


 * As an aside, Tannin, you seem very emotionally attached to inflicting a certain POV onto this article. You keep saying things are "obvious", "undisputable", and the like.  You did take my "Tannin is a Public Danger" comment in good humor, so why can't we take the same attitude towards this article?  -º¡º

I've removed the paragraph with the statistics, since the sources given were 1) a newspaper editorial on the opinion page criticizing pit bulls; and 2) the homepage of a lawyer who specializes in personal injury claims against pit bull owners. These are biased sources. Can we get a neutral source, and a primary source, not somebody repeating a figure from somewhere else? -kwertii

Please do not remove verifiable, properly referenced, relevant facts from articles. If you want to push your point of view, then do so on a talk page or add factual information supporting your view. Do not remove facts from entries just because they make you feel uncomfortable. Tannin 01:20 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * Haven't we already been through this? The figures in the article are not verifiable or properly referenced facts; your sources are biased. Someone writing a web page and putting, "Figures from the Humane Society" on it doesn't mean those figures actually come from the Humane Society. This becomes even more dubious when the web page in question is obviously heavily biased towards a particular position (i.e. a personal injury attorney who specializes in suing dog owners providing statistics on dog bites). If you can find primary sources for these figures, then they are suitable for inclusion. What you have are secondary sources which may or may not be correct, all the more so because they are inherently slanted.

Yes. We have been through it. Over and over and bloody well over again. There are dozens of reputable sources for information of this general nature. It astonishes me that anyone would still be trying to deny the obvious and uncontroversial fact that PBTs injure and maim a great many people. (The fact itself is uncontroversial - the reasons behind the fact, of course, are hotly disputed.) I'm not going to bother repeating myself anmore after this post - I have far more interesting things to do on the web than explain the fundamental requirement that a Wikipedia article contain evidence from both sides of a dispute - but I will not stand idly by and see someone ruthlessly cutting verified facts from an entry.


 * I don't know or care much about pit bulls, but the statistics Tannin cites seem out of place for an encyclopedia and more at home in a newspaper editorial where they seem to originate from. Also, I think the article sufficiently conveys the fact that pit bulls can be dangerous without those superfluous additions. erzengel 1342 UTC April 10 2003


 * I have no problem with the idea of including such statistics per se; but your sources are not valid NPOV sources such as are used in an encyclopedia. I thoroughly agree that we should present both sides of a dispute. If there are dozens of other sources, then find one that's a primary source and unbiased, and include that. Citing a) a newspaper editorial that rails against pit bulls and b) a small business homepage for a personal injury attorney who sues dog owners just doesn't cut it as NPOV "verification" when you're writing up dog bite statistics -- not to mention that, regardless of any slant, these are secondary sources, and unsuitable as encyclopedic validation for that reason alone. If you have some primary, NPOV sources for these statistics, great, I'd have no problem including them; but the two sources in the article now are very biased, and hearsay regardless.
 * I would also recommend a course or two on basic logic and debate -- merely beating one's chest and repeating, "these are facts, stop denying it and deal with it" over and over is more along the lines of a 7 year old's playground debate (with somewhat more advanced vocabulary) than it is along the lines of encyclopedia-level intellectual discourse. -kwertii


 * The entry has been buggered about so many times by a small number of fanatics in order to serve the purpose of removing any evidence contrary to their extraordinary belief that PBTs are about as harmless as pet rabbits, that it's a wonder anything is in place, Erzengel. The para with figures only arrived in the entry because the fanatics kept deleting any other reference to PBTs and the killing/maiming of people. It was a case of cite figures or sit back and allow the entry to become hopelessly biased. I'm not very interested in PBTs myself, and haven't tried to have much to do with the rest of the article. There is actually a heap more in the same sort of vein that could go in. There are many countries around the world that have significant numbers of well-documented PBT killings, as I soon discovered when I was obliged to waste quite some time searching the web for documentation on this a month or two ago. This stuff should really go into the entry, but I have other things I'd rather do, and a couple of example countries seems to me sufficient to make the point. Tannin

I think Tannin's edit is factual and accurate and belongs in the article. It should not be constantly removed. STÓD/ÉÍRE 17:21 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

Tannin, although I think you and I would both agree that pit bulls are dangerous -- perhaps even too dangerous to have in suburbs or cities -- it's really not for you or I to say.


 * What are you talking about? Why direct this at me? It makes no sense at all, Ed. Tannin 22:56 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

We are humble reporters, not authors of original research. Moreover, although we may be proponents or opponents of a POV, neither of us has views that are of interest to our readers. We make, um, Poor copy :-)

Rather, let us say that some writers or jurisdictions think X about pit bulls.


 * It already cites sources, and it does not say that some people think X, it simply reports on the number of deaths they cause and lets the reader draw her own conclusions. Again, why are you directing this at me?Your words are soft-spoken and reasonable, the fact that you are directing them at me is not. ''I am not the one with a mania about REMOVING FACTS FROM THIS ARTICLE. Tannin

Remember, the key is always to attribute points of view


 * I already did that. Tannin


 * (P's of V? POVs?) to their adherents, rather than drawing any conclusions ourselves. Once you can master that, you'll have hardly any future difficulties here at Wikipedia. --Uncle Ed 18:16 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)


 * pitbulls.com says, "The people who are the DIRECT cause of most fatal dog attacks [are] drug dealers, gang members, punk kids and other thugs."

We might also mention the views of professional breeders and groups like the AKC. They recognize and deplore the problem of unprovoked dog attacks on humans. However, they argue that "breed-specific" regulations won't solve the problem; but, rather penalize law-abiding, non-dog-abusing owners who DON'T teach their dogs to attack people.


 * NJ Looks at ?Pit Bull? Restrictions

On the other hand, it's probably a lot easier to prove that a person possesses a particular breed of dog than to prove that he has been training it to be vicious. A rapid glance from an expert is all it takes to prove the former; I can't even guess how a court would prove the latter. --Uncle Ed 18:37 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)


 * "A rapid glance from an expert is all it takes..." - It isn't that easy. Professional dog breeders disagree among themselves as to what exactly constitutes a "breed" as much perhaps as we could disagree amongst ourselves as to what constitutes a "race".  -º¡º


 * The rest of both your posts I have no problem with. Tannin

Tannin wrote "The "disagreement" in Oz is similar to the "disagreement" over flat vs round earth: only the PBT owner lobby disagrees - no-one else does."


 * If you want to cite the RSPCA and the Courier-Mail, please provide evidence that either of these organizations has reported the "4 out of 7" figure. -º¡º


 * I don't want to cite the bloody things. I simply want you to stop making up or denying ridiculous stuff about Australia and sticking them in the entry. I would be perfectly happy to simply cite the figures (which are not disputed by anyone except the fanatics of the PB lobby). The entry read better when we were not troubling to cite a source at all, but you insisted on it. Please, learn a litt;e about your subject before putting in really silly stuff like "The Age, a newspaper opposed to pit bulls". That's a terribly misleading thing to write. Technically, yes, The Age is a newspaper, and yes, it did publish an editorial opposed to pit bulls. Probably several, actually, as every now and then there is a particularly horrible death or mutilation, and the subject becomes newsworthy once again. But what on earth makes you think that The Age is more opposed to PBTs than any other major newspaper in Australia?


 * Why don't you want to provide a citation for the facts you want to present? If the RSPCA and the Courier-Mail have independently reported or claimed the "4 out of 7" figure, then why won't you cite them?  My placing the "The Age, a newspaper opposed to pit bulls" was an attempt to balance the paragraph after you had called the EDBA a "pit bull owners lobby".  If The Age has taken an editorial stance opposed to pit bulls, then that makes them a newspaper opposed to pit bulls instead of a simple neutral reporter of the facts.  For now, to make you happy, I've deleted BOTH statements. -º¡º


 * To the best of my knowledge, there is no particular variation as regards public opinion about PBTs from one Australian state to another. We have already cited 100% of the metropolitan daily newspapers in Melbourne, Austraia's second largest city, and Brisbane, the third-largest. There are two Sydney papers, one of which shares content and editorial policy with The Age, the other with the Courier Mail and the Herald-Sun. I've seen articles about PBT deaths from the Western Australia's only daily paper too. Doesn't leave much does it. Please, STOP TRYING TO DENY PLAIN FACTS because they don't agree with your point of view. Tannin


 * You haven't provided a single cited fact that I've attempted to deny. All I've asked you to do is to back up your claims. -º¡º

Perhaps "widely accepted" is a bit too ambigious. Susan Mason


 * Perhaps you are right, Susan. "Almost universally accepted" would be better. But "widely accepted" will do. Just to illustrate how silly it is to claim that the Age is an "anti-pit bull newspaper", here is something from their competition. From the Herald-Sun editorial of the 11th Decemner 2002: American pit bull terriers are a menace and should not be kept in any back yard in this state, let alone be allowed to walk through our parks and streets. The fact is, these vile animals are genetically programmed to kill. And no amount of bleating from owners who make claims such as, ?But little Hannibal is so cute and adorable that he wouldn?t harm a flea?, changes a thing. The american pit bull is deadly. Once that instinct to kill is triggered- weather it be by a small child or a fluffy white dog- the creature becomes a raging monster. Mate, by comparison with the tabloid press, The Age attitude to PBTs is flowers and kisses. Tannin


 * The passage you quoted above was from an opinion article, not an editorial. It did not, therefore, express the position of the editors of the newspaper. -º¡º

But is there any need to actually think for the reader? Let them decide how accepted it is. Susan Mason


 * our task is to just state the facts, not opinions. Tannin


 * Indeed. That is exactly what I am trying to do as well. -º¡º

'I don't know why in the heck there's an edit war over pit bulls'', but it's rather a silly thing isn't it? I'm locking the article temporarily, everybody just take a breather.''' --Brion 00:40 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

I see that the page is protected. Among other things, that provides an opportunity to read over and improve text rather than simply defend it against POV skewings. What follows is, I think, an improvement. (It would be better still without the multiple citations, but in the circumstances perhaps they need to stay.) I should check to see if there are any state premiers that are exceptions to the "most (all?)" sentence, and then remove whichever of the two words is incorrect.


 * In Australia, it is generally accepted that pit bull terriers have been responsible for four of the seven dog attacks in which people have died between 1991 and 2002. (There are multiple sources for this, including the RSPCA, The Age, and the other major Australian media outlets: see this Herald-Sun story for an example.) Many political figures including most (all?) State Premiers have made public statements of ther intention to act on the problem. The Endangered Dog Breeds Association of Australia, however, a lobby group favour of pit bull ownership, denies these figures, and claims that there have been no known fatalities caused by pit bull terriers, and that only 8 of 750 investigated bitings involved this breed. [1]. It should be noted in relation to both points of view that the assignment of fatalities to a particular breed can be a rather difficult task. A great many dogs are crossbreeds of some kind and even experts have difficulty in telling them apart with certainty.

Tannin 00:52 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * No to "generally accepted" - use instead "debated" or "accepted by some", or simple note that The Age reported this and other people quote them. If you insist on saying that the RSPCA repeats this, then you should be able to cite them as well.  If you want to quote individual state premiers, then quote them individually.  If you want to keep the statement that the EDBA is a "pit bull lobby group" then keep the statement that The Age has taken an editorial stance opposed to pit bulls.  The statement regarding telling breeds apart deserves expanding and promoting.


 * The better solutions will probably be a complete rewrite of this section into a format that looks nothing like what is there now, and thus avoids this conflict altogether. -º¡º

If there is such a dispute over pitbulls, why is it now a presecutable offence to have an unmuzzled pit bull in public in the UK? Why indeed is there a public demand that pitbulls as a breed be exterminated in the UK? STÓD/ÉÍRE

Who denied there was a dispute over pitbulls? The dispute is over what the facts of the matter are, how they have been presented to the public, and how they should be cited. -º¡º

Secondary sources are unsuitable for use as statistical citations. All statistics should be from primary sources, the organization that developed the statistic in question. Ever play "Telephone" as a kid? Information gets degraded with each repetition. If you want to cite a Humane Society report, then link to the Humane Society directly, not to a newspaper editorial which contains statistics that may or may not resemble the results of a Humane Society study. --kwertii


 * Indeed. But what do you do when a newspaper appears to be the primary source? -º¡º


 * Unless the newspaper conducted a study itself, it's not a primary source... -kwertii


 * Agreed, I would love to find the primary source, but at this moment it appears that the newspaper itself *is* the primary source. In the next sentence, Tannin is about to propose how this could be. -º¡º


 * For a big city newspaper, researching this sort of thing is no big deal. Newspapers spend a fortune on filing systems that go back almost forever, and on indexing systems that make it possible for journalists to find it easily. For a big newspaper like The Age, how long do you think it would take a cadet reporter to dig the relevant back-issue stories out of the database? 10 minutes?


 * This would make the newspaper the primary source. -º¡º


 * Of course, they may have had a different source (possibly the RSPCA) but in a small country like this, you can be quite certain that any dog attack death will rate a story in the daily papers, and from there it's just a matter of keying DOG and ATTACK and DEATH into the terminal and counting them up. Tannin

Like BFB, I would certainly not deny that there is a dispute over what to do about PBTs (on not do, as the case may be). The best way to handle the problem is indeed disputed. However, the existence of the problem is not disputed, except by a very small minority of extremists. (I am speaking about Australia here: a different situation may obtain in other countries, of course.)

It is grossly misleading to describe The Age as an "anti-PBT" newspaper. By comparison with other major newspapers (especially the tabloids) The Age is very restrained indeed. I am not aware of a single major media outlet in Australia that does not either take the same view as The Age or else the considerably more extreme view of the Herald-Sun, which calls APBTs "these vile animals". I hear an RSPCA representative speak on radio every Saturday morning (except when I sleep in). I don't actually enjoy the programme - the usual RSPCA bloke is an arrogant prick who talks down to people and gets my goat - but I'm usually too lazy to change stations. He is, by the way, the Victorian and the National President. So far as the RSPCA goes, there ain't no-one in a better position to speak than him.


 * Whether or not "The Age" has taken an editorial stance against pit bulls has nothing to do with what other newspapers have done. This isn't a matter of trying to line up all the papers and compare them.  It is a very simple NPOV observation to say "This is an editorial, it is by The Age, it is anti-pitbull, therefore The Age has taken an anti-pitbull editorial stance. -º¡º

I have little interest in PBTs. I don't want to edit this page. I would far rather not have these great lumps of my valuable editing time destroyed by lunatic-fringe types seeking to pretend that the PBT's don't actually kill and maim people om a regular basis. I have far more interesting things to do. But someone has to take a stand for balance, for factual reporting, and for moderation, and until someone else steps in and volunteers to take care of the matter, then I guess it's up to me. Tannin 04:32 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * Nice soapbox, but I don't see how what you are doing is achieving balance or moderation. Here are specific problems with the paragraph as you would have it:


 * "In Australia, pit bull terriers have been responsible for four of the seven dog attacks in Australia in which people have died between 1991 and 2002." - This factoid didn't fall from the sky, it is a claim someone had to research and make, therefore we should cite the source.
 * "(There are multiple sources for this, including the RSPCA, The Age, and the other major Australian media outlets: see Herald-Sun story for an example.)" - You have yet to provide a citation for saying the RSPCA has made this claim, and "other major Australian media outlets" is vague as well. If someone has claimed it, cite them here or in the article.
 * "Many political figures including most (all?) State Premiers have made public statements of ther intention to act on the problem." - Which ones? Can you cite them?
 * "The Endangered Dog Breeds Association of Australia, however, a pit bull lobby group, denies these figures, and claims that there have been no known fatalities caused by pit bull terriers, and that only 8 of 750 investigated bitings involved this breed. ." - Who says the are a lobby group? They don't.  Nobody else does.  Why call them a lobby group when you appear to be the only person doing so?

Here is how the facts that we have, so far, should better be presented:


 * In Australia, there is disagreement as to how many injuries or deaths can be attributed to pit bulls. According to the The Age, pit bull terriers have been responsible for four of the seven dog attacks in Australia in which people have died between 1991 and 2002. . Other Australian newspapers, including the Melbourne Herald Sun have reported this figure as well, attributing The Age as their source. The Endangered Dog Breeds Association of Australia questions these figures and claims that there have been no known fatalities caused by pit bull terriers, and that only 8 of 750 investigated bitings involved this breed..

Note that in the version above, every statement is cited or directly stated. Fact: there is disagreement. Fact: The Age has made a claim. Fact: Other sources have repeated this claim. Fact: the EDBA questions these figures. -º¡º

Not so at all, BFB. Let's look at it statement by statement: Where, outside of the weirdo fringe (i.e., the PBT lobby) do you get the idea that there is disagreement from? Why have you not even tried to cite a source for such a wild assertion? Second, we know that the statement of PBT deaths has been widely accepted, even by the Age's direct competition (who you may rest assured, never mention anything that appeared in The Age first, unless they feel they can't avoid it.) We do not know that The Age was the first to report the figure. It may well have been. Equally, it may have been someone else altogether. We just don't know. But we do know that the number is uncontroversial enough to have gone unchallenged. (Except by the self-interested weirdo frings, as already mentioned.) Your last "fact", is a fact: the EBDA does indeed argue differently. One out of three don't cut the mustard.

Now, working my way back up to the top of your post: This factoid didn't fall from the sky, it is a claim someone had to research and make, therefore we should cite the source. Fine. If you know the original source and you want to cite it, go right ahead. I ain't stopping you. (Hint: you will probably find this a rather difficult task, as it's the sort of obvious thing that may well have been reported independantly more than once.) You have yet to provide a citation for saying the RSPCA has made this claim. Read my previous posts. Please.

"Other major Australian media outlets" is vague as well. I first saw the figure in a Brisbane Courier Mail article. But if you had troubled to examine that Herald-Sun link of yours, you would have noticed the source of the report. From that you can deduce the probable distribution: every major Australian newspaper, provided only that they thought it worth the column inches, and much of the commercial broadcast media as well. AAP reports go to everyone.

State premiers: I have seen statements from the premiers of Victoria, Queensland, and Western Australia. That's more than half of Australia already. I have not seen statements from the NSW or minor state premiers, but you don't have to be too bright to see which way the wind is blowing on this one. Politically, PBTs are not something you want to be seen supporting in Australia. Everyone knows that they have killed and maimed a large number of Australians, mostly children. It's not controversial. (The only controversy concerns the best method of dealing with the problem.) Who says they are a lobby group? They do, of course. There may be a page on their site that doesn't lobby for PBTs, but if so I haven't seen it. Tannin

Tannin,

I addressed you above, because you are (A) the person I know best in the discussion and (B) generally rather reasonable. On rereading, I realized I should have just addressed my remarks to all particpants equally.

Everyone,

In the PBT controversy, there are apparently several diverse opinions: I think there may be some overlap here, especially between #2 & #3. I personally adhere to #4 (with a mild overlay of #2). A lot of people who disagree with #2 or #3 or both, adhere to #1.
 * 1) that pit bulls are perfectly nice, acceptable animals and should not be banned or restricted in any way;
 * 2) that pit bulls are inherently vicious and are too dangerous to be around people;
 * 3) that pit bulls are themselves responsible for attacking humans, and should therefore be restricted or even banned;
 * 4) that some owners of pit bulls train the dogs to be extra vicious, and therefore the owners should be held accountable when their dog attacks a human;

If there's a controversy, let's NOT TRY to get to the bottom of it, let alone have Wikipedia take a position on it. Instead, let's describe the views which the various adherents espouse. --Uncle Ed 14:55 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * No problem, Ed. I apologise if I was a little short. BTW, would you (or some other non-participant) care to archive the page - its getting way too long. Tannin

______________________________

Just thought I'd mention, I'm in Ireland and got viciously attacked by a pitbull in a house last Friday night. Wasn't nice, have a major cut on my chin and it's getting infected. Afterwards the dog escaped and the whole estate had to stay indoors until the owner was contacted and the dog had be chained up again. The dog should be shot! But the family who own the dog (and this is the general situation I find, with pitbulls) are a dangerous drug-dealing family. So I cannot even report the attack or I'd be in danger, not only from the dog, but from its' owners!

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)