r Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
|||
Line 219: | Line 219: | ||
::::::::Would you object to [[Wikipedia:Third_opinion]] as a first step in the DR process if noone else chimes in a reasonable amount of time? I strongly disagree with your rationale, but Wikipedia is a consensus based site and this page is unfortunately not as watched as other controversial issues. I'd like to avoid endless back and forth if possible. [[User:PearlSt82|PearlSt82]] ([[User talk:PearlSt82|talk]]) 04:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC) |
::::::::Would you object to [[Wikipedia:Third_opinion]] as a first step in the DR process if noone else chimes in a reasonable amount of time? I strongly disagree with your rationale, but Wikipedia is a consensus based site and this page is unfortunately not as watched as other controversial issues. I'd like to avoid endless back and forth if possible. [[User:PearlSt82|PearlSt82]] ([[User talk:PearlSt82|talk]]) 04:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::You don't need my approval to do that. Nevertheless, the source quote {{tq|....rarely acknowledge when they receive funding or personal contributions As a result, some of the most influential literature has received authorship from persons who have a high risk of bias, yet this is not disclosed.}} and the article quote {{tq|there's a risk that the scientific literature on pit bulls has been influenced by money}} '''are exactly equivalent in meaning.''' and it's ridiculous (and disruptive) that you're wikilawyering this. [[User:Geogene|Geogene]] ([[User talk:Geogene|talk]]) 05:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC) |
:::::::::You don't need my approval to do that. Nevertheless, the source quote {{tq|....rarely acknowledge when they receive funding or personal contributions As a result, some of the most influential literature has received authorship from persons who have a high risk of bias, yet this is not disclosed.}} and the article quote {{tq|there's a risk that the scientific literature on pit bulls has been influenced by money}} '''are exactly equivalent in meaning.''' and it's ridiculous (and disruptive) that you're wikilawyering this. [[User:Geogene|Geogene]] ([[User talk:Geogene|talk]]) 05:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::Third opinion requires both editors to participate in good faith. If you feel like I'm being intractably disruptive, then file an ANI instead of making constant accusations of disruption coupled with threats and personal attacks. [[User:PearlSt82|PearlSt82]] ([[User talk:PearlSt82|talk]]) 05:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:33, 11 March 2021
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 (article contribs).
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 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 (article contribs).
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 {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 11
as Talk:Pit bull/Archive 10 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
Factually incorrect, heavily biased
This article seems heavily biased in favor of promoting a specific viewpoint: that the breed is not dangerous. One of the few neutral articles I could find indicates otherwise. This citation clearly shows over 2/3 of dog related fatalities over a 15 year period in the US were caused by "Pit Bulls", not the 1/3 mentioned in the text. [1] 2600:8801:C200:A8:C829:D6D0:180D:E558 (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- That study identifies 60 fatalities from pit bulls out of a total of 199 which is less than one third. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Can't comment on accuracy of references. Even if all the cited sources are reliable, this entry has turned into a position piece on the safety of pit bulls and the ineffectiveness of breed-specific legislation, as opposed to a descriptive article on pit bulls in general. --Paleogizmo (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't even care particularly about pitbulls, but the user PearlSt82 has so obviously selectively chosen citations that they agree with, it's very obvious what is going on. Even if the slant is correct, the way it has been written does not seem convincingly neutral. Even if you disagree with me, do you think this is an article about pitbulls, or is this a position piece on the safety of pit bulls and the ineffectiveness of breed-specific legislation, as was stated by the above user? --Menacinghat (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC) Menacinghat (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- The tone, presentation, and selection of sources is all framed around advocacy, not neutrality. This is a fundamental problem with this article and I'll be working to address it in the coming weeks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Wikieditor19920, as you can see several editors have been attempting to fix some the many issues with this article over the last 24 hours. The tone of your statement above suggests that you are not satisfied with any of these efforts, what specifically do you see as the issues? Cavalryman (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC).
- @Cavalryman: What those editors are doing is fine, what I am NOT satisfied with and what is contrary to neutrality is your wholesale removal of relevant, sourced, factual information from the lead. Stop whitewashing this article of controversies and other negative information. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hello again Wikieditor19920, please show me a diff where I removed some of your additions to the lead, I did a little copy editing [1] but no more. More, why did you reinsert the issues tags and remove some of the content from the History section? Cavalryman (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC).
- @Cavalryman: What those editors are doing is fine, what I am NOT satisfied with and what is contrary to neutrality is your wholesale removal of relevant, sourced, factual information from the lead. Stop whitewashing this article of controversies and other negative information. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Wikieditor19920, as you can see several editors have been attempting to fix some the many issues with this article over the last 24 hours. The tone of your statement above suggests that you are not satisfied with any of these efforts, what specifically do you see as the issues? Cavalryman (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC).
- The tone, presentation, and selection of sources is all framed around advocacy, not neutrality. This is a fundamental problem with this article and I'll be working to address it in the coming weeks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The fact that the sentence However, a five-year review in the peer-reviewed medical journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in 2009 found that over half of dog attack victims admitted to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia were attacked by pit bulls. keeps getting deleted despite the fact I used a news article is terrible. I'm sure the scientists were all biased pitbull banners and those reviewing the journal were all biased. Menacinghat (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- I can offer a few superficial reasons to settle any frayed edges: 1) That is a surgery journal and its presumed specialty is medical. 2) The article is older than ten years. 3) Pit Bulls exist outside of Philadelphia. 4) Not all news is equally qualified, even if popular. 5) A meta-analysis of bias in the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery journal exists, though I disincline to investigate for conclusions. I hope that casts some light onto what is taken to be the problem. - Thrif (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm guessing you are referring to this author? Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature (Bailey 2017). Normal Op (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
The piece currently still reads as an issue advocacy piece arguing for the safety of pit bulls. The history is littered with examples of well-sourced factual information on research around dog bites and child fatalities being removed and replaced with vague unsourced statements claiming that pit bulls are perfectly safe. It even contains a section on notable pit bulls that is full of poorly formatted unsourced claims about unnotable dogs. Example: "Daddy, Cesar Millan's right-hand dog, was famous for his mellow temperament and his ability to interact calmly with ill-mannered dogs." and "Pit bull breeds have acted as war dogs, police dogs, search and rescue dogs, actors, television personalities, seeing eye dogs, and celebrity pets." As it currently exists, this is a very low quality article with little to no encyclopedic value. I think this article needs an unbiased maintainer to carefully examine the sections, the sources, and the content. This is likely to be an ongoing problem for as long as there are highly motivated pit bull lovers willing to devote countless hours to editing this article. 2hip2carebear (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I implemented some of those changes. I deleted any mentions of dogs that weren't linked to standalone articles about them, marked the claim about Cesare Millan's dog's temperament as unsourced, and didn't see the contradiction with Nipper. Geogene (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have reverted the removal of the contradiction tag from next to Nipper. No sources that provide in depth coverage of his pedigree claim he was a pit bull, two sources in the article state he was part Bull Terrier, a pedigree breed that is outside the definition of pit bull in this article. That someone has found a single fleeting mention that contradicts all more detailed sources does not justify the tag's removal. Further, given Nipper was English and we have reliable sources stating that in Britain the term pit bull only includes the American Pit Bull Terrier, the inconsistency of his classification is further reinforced. Cavalryman (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC).
What about these two cites @Ohnoitsjamie: added [2] for Daddy the dog? One looks like an opinion aggregator [3] and the other is a Salon piece that repeats the nanny dog myth [4]. Geogene (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's easy to find other sources (as I have done, including one from NYT) that support the "famous for his mellow temperament" statement. Your opinions of what constitutes a "myth" are irrelevant to the issue of sourcing here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
RfC: Should veterinary sources be weighted more than the popular press for lede and dog attack risk sections at Pit bull?
(relist) Should veterinary sources be given greater weight than the popular press for the lede and dog attack risk sections?PearlSt82 (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I am filing an RfC for this dispute, as there have been no further comments in more than a week. There have been previous unresolved disputes (see prior talk page sections) on how veterinary sources should be used in this article, specifically for facts, figures and statements pertaining to risk of injury to humans. I am arguing that veterinary sources are the authorative body in this area, whereas others have argued that they are inherently biased towards animals, and have been corrupted by the "pit bull lobby". In particular, I am referring to the following sources and their claims:
- 2014 AVMA literature review that states that controlled studies have not identified pit bulls as disproportionately dangerous
- 2001 JAVMA review of major studies over 40 years - states breeds that represent top the biting list changes over time and with makeup of dog populations
- AVSAB position statement on BSL, references several studies that show no change in overall biting incidences when pit-bull populations approach near-zero
- 2013 JAVMA paper concludes that breed is not a factor in dog bite related fatalities
- 2017 Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science literature review which reviews 156 medical studies on dog bite-related injuries and demonstrates severe flaws in metholodogy of papers calculating breed risk by hospital intake statistics
Others have argued we should be giving higher weight to the popular press like Time and Sports Illustrated, which make the claims that pit bulls are inherently dangerous and that they bite the most, and we should be publishing raw statistics in wikivoice. In what fashion should the article handle the discrepancy between position statements/peer-reviewed literature reviews from veterinary organizations and articles in the popular press? PearlSt82 (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- No. We already have a policy about what is a reliable source. All of those organizations are animal-centric, whereas much coverage and many studies about pit bulls are related to public safety. It is the media ("popular press", as you devalue it) who covers people-centric medical studies, public safety issues, and legislative matters in language understandable for the lay person and without Wikipedia editors having to use primary sources (such as court cases, actual legislation, etc.). I am seriously concerned about this agenda you have to "rank" sources, basically deprecating all other sources (and viewpoints) and relegating them to be deleted. This page has repeatedly been tagged as not-NPOV over the years; this won't help the matter. Normal Op (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- WP:WEIGHT is a core component at coming to a NPOV resolution, hence the question, which I consider to be the core of the issue. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Read that policy again. Nothing in that section (Due and undue weight) tells us to "rank" sources, but instead cautions us to "avoid giving undue weight" to fringe topics and minority viewpoints. You cannot seriously be suggesting that all other viewpoints except veterinary and animal-centric organizations are fringe.
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
Normal Op (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)- I am suggesting these veterinary sources represent the consensus of mainstream relevant scientific literature, and that media outlets like Time and Sports Illustrated represent a minority opinion not represented by the relevant scholarly bodies. It is clear the veterinary sources and some media outlets do not agree, which is the point of the RfC, to decide the proper weight between the two. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- You must be referring to this 2014 Time article; however, it cites six or more sources interviewed and covers other angles related to a particular pit bull attack; hardly a minority viewpoint. "Minority viewpoint" in the WP:DUE policy was referring to FRINGE, anyway. The 1987 Sports Illustrated article quotes even more people (I got tired of counting). Hardly FRINGE coverage. Both articles cover the topic in far more detail and depth (and both sides) moreso than contemporary articles. (Good journalism is harder to come by since the internet started displacing newspaper revenues.) It's just a different angle of coverage of a topic. One type of source doesn't (and shouldn't) supplant the other. Normal Op (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, these are indeed the Time and Sports Illustrated articles I'm referring to. WP:WEIGHT does not apply to just WP:FRINGE. Specifically, it says: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". I would argue these are the veterinary sources, as they are peer-reviewed and written by scholars in the relevant field. The policy goes on to say "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" - which I would argue represent the views of Dogsbite.org/Animals 24-7, which are picked up by media outlets like that Time source. The views of DBO/A247 are not peer-reviewed, not written by experts in the field, and are not replicated by any of the peer-reviewed veterinary sources as posted above. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- You must be referring to this 2014 Time article; however, it cites six or more sources interviewed and covers other angles related to a particular pit bull attack; hardly a minority viewpoint. "Minority viewpoint" in the WP:DUE policy was referring to FRINGE, anyway. The 1987 Sports Illustrated article quotes even more people (I got tired of counting). Hardly FRINGE coverage. Both articles cover the topic in far more detail and depth (and both sides) moreso than contemporary articles. (Good journalism is harder to come by since the internet started displacing newspaper revenues.) It's just a different angle of coverage of a topic. One type of source doesn't (and shouldn't) supplant the other. Normal Op (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am suggesting these veterinary sources represent the consensus of mainstream relevant scientific literature, and that media outlets like Time and Sports Illustrated represent a minority opinion not represented by the relevant scholarly bodies. It is clear the veterinary sources and some media outlets do not agree, which is the point of the RfC, to decide the proper weight between the two. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Read that policy again. Nothing in that section (Due and undue weight) tells us to "rank" sources, but instead cautions us to "avoid giving undue weight" to fringe topics and minority viewpoints. You cannot seriously be suggesting that all other viewpoints except veterinary and animal-centric organizations are fringe.
- WP:WEIGHT is a core component at coming to a NPOV resolution, hence the question, which I consider to be the core of the issue. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I picked one of these papers at random (paper 4, Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite–related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009) , Patronek et. al.) and downloaded a copy. It contains the following quote,
Of the factors related to dog bites reported in the media as well as in scientific literature, the breed of dog has come to dominate public policy discussions about prevention and control. The undue emphasis on breed....
So this paper states up front (as a literature review) that breed is generally seen as a factor in attack risk both in the media and in the scientific literature. Geogene (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- In what you quoted, it says the emphasis on breed in the media is undue, and it comes to the explicit conclusion "Most DBRFs were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these.". PearlSt82 (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- More precisely, it states that the emphasis is on breed in both scientific literature and in the media. It then asserts its own opinion that this emphasis is undue. Geogene (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, and as a secondary literature review from a well respected peer-reviewed journal, that opinion should be weighted highly, especially when it comes to the conclusion after analyzing the cases in-depth. PearlSt82 (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- When describing its own results, it's a primary source for that purpose. When describing views of others, it's secondary. Geogene (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is not true. Literally the first two sentences from WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." PearlSt82 (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- And from WP:MEDRS - "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations." PearlSt82 (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. So when Patronek says that most scientific papers, media reports, and public policy discussions consider breed to be a factor in risk, he is reviewing the literature and is Secondary for that purpose. When Patronek claims that his own research shows that the breed of dogs involved in attacks are consistently unidentifiable, as he does in this paper, he is Primary for that purpose. Geogene (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- No. Primary for Patronek's purpose, maybe, but secondary for us. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Additionally, at no point does he say "most scientific papers" consider breed to be a factor in risk in this paper. PearlSt82 (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- The claim you made was that Patronek "concludes that breed is not a factor in dog bite related fatalities." Perhaps he does, although in my reading he actually claims that breed is supposedly impossible to determine in such a large percentage of fatal attacks that there's no way to actually know whether breed is a factor or not, and that BSL is not an effective remedy for these reasons. He is a Primary source on his own conclusion, whatever it might actually be. Nevertheless, in that paper, Patronek says, as a secondary summary of the literature,
Of the factors related to dog bites reported in the media as well as in scientific literature, the breed of dog has come to dominate public policy discussions about prevention and control. The undue emphasis on breed....
that breed is reported as a factor in scientific literature as well as the media. This undermines your claim, because he is saying that breed is commonly reported as a factor (perhaps among other factors). He would like there to be less emphasis on breed, but is acknowledging that there's a lot of emphasis on breed out there. WP emphasizes majority viewpoints. Geogene (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)- His conclusion is that breed is not a factor in DBRFs, and that is unduely represented by the media. He states this unambiguously: "Most DBRFs were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these." This is not a primary interpreation, it is the conclusion of the study.PearlSt82 (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- From WP:RS: "This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves". PearlSt82 (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Did you actually read the paper? Geogene (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Also, a study is always primary for its own novel conclusions. Geogene (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I've read the paper, thank you very much. Look at the discussion of "Dog-related factors" on page 1730. Breed is not one of the factors discussed here. Later in the paper it is stated "Breed-specific legislation must also be viewed in light of study findings9,57 that indicate a lack of correlation between behavior and physical phenotype. This imprecision in breed assignment also brings into question the reliability of the breed information used in previous studies5–8 of DBRFs, which were based solely on media reports of breed.", and again, the conclusion clearly states "Most DBRFs were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these". The idea that a literature review is a primary source for its conclusions is ridiculous. PearlSt82 (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm glad you've read the paper. Those conclusions in the paper are original and primary. And now, let's remember that the point of this RfC you have opened is that you want to replace a reliable secondary source (Time) with other sources, including primary ones, which you are interpreting. And, during this RfC, you've been complaining about me interpreting the same primary sources. Your primary sources, in fact, one of the ones you're trying to replace a secondary source with. And, to repeat myself once again, Patronek is not a literature review for his own conclusions. I don't know why you're not grasping this point, that is something that I find ridiculous. Counting media reports, reading depositions, interviewing detectives, and finding unpublished photos of dogs that were involved in attacks and asking veterinarians to classify those dogs by breed is not what a literature review is. Geogene (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not doing any "interpreting" here, I am pasting near verbatim the upper-level conclusions from secondary sources - which all of these are. The Patronek paper is secondary because it provides a comprehensive review of the primary sources involved in every known DBRF. Additionally, there I'm not the only editor who feels this paper is secondary, as per above. The paper even explicitly states which primary sources it is analyzing, from page 1729: "Primary sources—Law enforcement sources (homicide detectives, chiefs of police, sheriffs, or other investigators) were interviewed with regard to 177 of the 256 (69.1%) DBRFs. Animal control officers were interviewed with regard to 44 of 256 (17.2%) DBRFs. Other persons familiar with the cases (eg, veterinarians, prosecutors, owners, and witnesses) were interviewed with regard to 24 of 256 (9.4%) DBRFs. For 11 (4.3%) cases, no primary source could be interviewed but 2 of these DBRFs were reported extensively in the media and were the subject of high-profile trials." - and again from WP:RS - "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." - where is the policy stating that a paper's conclusions are always primary? WP:PRIMARY says "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment" - this paper is not an "experiment", but rather a thorough examination of existing primary sources, where it is one step removed from the event. PearlSt82 (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm glad you've read the paper. Those conclusions in the paper are original and primary. And now, let's remember that the point of this RfC you have opened is that you want to replace a reliable secondary source (Time) with other sources, including primary ones, which you are interpreting. And, during this RfC, you've been complaining about me interpreting the same primary sources. Your primary sources, in fact, one of the ones you're trying to replace a secondary source with. And, to repeat myself once again, Patronek is not a literature review for his own conclusions. I don't know why you're not grasping this point, that is something that I find ridiculous. Counting media reports, reading depositions, interviewing detectives, and finding unpublished photos of dogs that were involved in attacks and asking veterinarians to classify those dogs by breed is not what a literature review is. Geogene (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I've read the paper, thank you very much. Look at the discussion of "Dog-related factors" on page 1730. Breed is not one of the factors discussed here. Later in the paper it is stated "Breed-specific legislation must also be viewed in light of study findings9,57 that indicate a lack of correlation between behavior and physical phenotype. This imprecision in breed assignment also brings into question the reliability of the breed information used in previous studies5–8 of DBRFs, which were based solely on media reports of breed.", and again, the conclusion clearly states "Most DBRFs were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these". The idea that a literature review is a primary source for its conclusions is ridiculous. PearlSt82 (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- The claim you made was that Patronek "concludes that breed is not a factor in dog bite related fatalities." Perhaps he does, although in my reading he actually claims that breed is supposedly impossible to determine in such a large percentage of fatal attacks that there's no way to actually know whether breed is a factor or not, and that BSL is not an effective remedy for these reasons. He is a Primary source on his own conclusion, whatever it might actually be. Nevertheless, in that paper, Patronek says, as a secondary summary of the literature,
- Additionally, at no point does he say "most scientific papers" consider breed to be a factor in risk in this paper. PearlSt82 (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- No. Primary for Patronek's purpose, maybe, but secondary for us. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. So when Patronek says that most scientific papers, media reports, and public policy discussions consider breed to be a factor in risk, he is reviewing the literature and is Secondary for that purpose. When Patronek claims that his own research shows that the breed of dogs involved in attacks are consistently unidentifiable, as he does in this paper, he is Primary for that purpose. Geogene (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- When describing its own results, it's a primary source for that purpose. When describing views of others, it's secondary. Geogene (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, and as a secondary literature review from a well respected peer-reviewed journal, that opinion should be weighted highly, especially when it comes to the conclusion after analyzing the cases in-depth. PearlSt82 (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- More precisely, it states that the emphasis is on breed in both scientific literature and in the media. It then asserts its own opinion that this emphasis is undue. Geogene (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- In what you quoted, it says the emphasis on breed in the media is undue, and it comes to the explicit conclusion "Most DBRFs were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these.". PearlSt82 (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
When we talk about literature reviews, we're talking about papers that summarize other published works in order to give an overview of the state of knowledge of some field. What literature reviews do not do is advance their own new arguments, interpret unpublished primary sources, interview new witnesses, or create new data. Just because a paper involved a trip to a library or a courthouse to look at unpublished documents does not mean that that paper is a literature review. Geogene (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Its still a secondary source for the purpose of Wikipedia, and as it was published in the most prominent peer-reviewed journal in the field, it should have more weight over Time and Sports Illustrated. In the initial papers I've posted, 1, 2 and 5 are literature reviews, which draw similar conclusions, showing that the Patronek paper is not a minority viewpoint within the field, but rather part of an accepted consensus within the veterinary community. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. Of course. Wikipedia articles should always weight scientific sources over popular press in matters related to the field in question. That should go without saying and is frankly an obvious answer. oknazevad (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Of course. Expert sources are better than sensationalist press.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes It's obvious that we should trust the experts first. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- No. If the question were related to veterinary care, the answer would be "yes", but that is not the case here. The RfC asks to use veterinary journals as part of an appeal to authority, but it fails because it is in fact an appeal to false authority. Rationale: The question of whether a dog's breed are a factor in dog bite-related human fatalities is no more a question of veterinary science than the question of why Black Americans are killed by the police in the United States is a question of medical science. Veterinarians are certainly entitled to their opinions, but their opinions carry no more weight than anyone else's if they are not related to veterinary science. Astro$01 (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- No. When things happen - a shooting, someone drowned, a car accident whatever - it's news. When a dog mauls someone it's sensationalism. That's strange. SlightSmile 00:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia relies on journalists and other secondary sources to summarize the primary sources for us so we don't have editors cherry-picking research. If we are going to rely on primary sources, then we need to recognize that veterinary sources are not the only valid source of information here. Medical experts who treat dog attack victims and study it as a public safety issue are also valid. In two large studies of dog attacks by medical experts, fifty percent of dog attacks were perpetrated by pit bulls. These were a 2009 study in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery[1] and a 2016 study in Clinical Pediatrics.[2] My prior attempts to add this information to the article were reverted by PearlSt82 because of this bias against non-veterinary sources. – Anne drew 19:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- It should be noted that I'm not referring to veterinary primary sources, but veterinary secondary sources here - which are all listed at the top of the RfC and clearly secondary sourcing, and that both of these medical studies are primary. I agree veterinary primary sources should not be used. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- No. This subject is controversial and reliable sources have noted that veterinarians tend to have a POV bias in opposition to that of other stakeholders:
However, the literature has to be reviewed critically with pro-legislation authors being primarily physicians who see the most severe spectrum of injuries as compared to pro-canine authors who have a veterinary background or are affiliated to them.
[3] So giving veterinary sources priority will have the effect of tilting the article POV. I also don't see the merit in individual editor opinions that some RS are "sensationalist". Geogene (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Are there other sources which assert this? In that quote you mention it states that physicians have a POV bias in the other direction, and doesn't go much in detail either way. I ask not to refute the finding or underlying reliability of the publication, but in your post you state "sources" which implies more than one and would just like clarification on the bibliography aspect. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Question about timing - since the RfC is expired and only attracted (from what I can tell) two editors who were previously uninvolved, and current voting is 4/4 (not that consensus is a vote) - would involved editors be willing to participate in a WP:DRN? As mentioned before, I think this is absolutely the crux of the issue for the article and would like a definitive consensus/compromise either way. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Question #2 about timing - reading more about WP:DRN it looks like this is not the venue for large content disputes involving many participants. Since this RfC is no longer active due to timing out, would involved editors object to relisting it as-is? I would really like to attract uninvolved editors to get this issue resolved one way or the other. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've relisted this and reposted it at WP:NPOVN. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Depends on the source Sources with a history of advocacy on pit bulls are known for misleading or incomplete information. This is a field where I would say veterinary sources are of value for only limited, highly technical areas. When a veterinary source asserts something like "pit bulls are impossible to identify" and then later claims "pit bulls are only responsible for % percent of bites when adjusted for X," that detracts from their credibility. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, of course - but let me be clearer: as per WP:RS:
When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources
. So yes, material from a peer reviewed veterinary (or medical, or other relevant field) journal should be at the top of the list. You'd really need a positive consensus for that not to be the case. I don't find arguments about a whole field of research being biased all that convincing here without a ton of compelling evidence (in which case this is a better discussion for a more central location, because the implications of shoddy research would apply across animal articles). Yes, peer reviewed journals are better sources for most things -- especially about statistics and claims about behavior. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: When we're talking about sources that are WP:BIASED because the studies are funded by advocacy organizations and they present findings that are facially illogical, that's a problem. No one said every source is subject to bias, but it needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Case by case basis sounds good to me. But all things being equal, peer reviewed journals should be preferred (and the issue that you're highlighting is why some form of review/secondary research would be best of all, but I'm not sure how typical that is in the field). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: I definitely agree that is policy as a general matter, but if you look closely at many of the "peer reviewed studies" in this particular area, they are almost all commissioned by advocacy organizations or those with a vested interest in the adoption industry. Pit bulls are exceedingly difficult to adopt out and comprise the vast majority of dogs in shelters. And yet, they are the most expensive dogs to maintain because of the inherent health problems most of them suffer from due to years of bad breeding. So a lot of organizations have a monied interest in "fluff" studies designed to make them more appealing and play down negative qualities so that a) more people adopt them and b) more people donate to help them fund their expenses. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Are you saying the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association is intentionally downplaying public health risks so they can make money? PearlSt82 (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's strange, though, that there are peer reviewed papers on this subject that advocate for withholding information about breed background to prospective adopters, isn't it? [5] (this one is not AVMA). Is that ethical? Geogene (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think thats an accurate representation of that paper. The last sentence in the abstract is
Given the inherent complexity of breed assignment based on morphology coupled with negative breed perceptions, removing breed labels is a relatively low-cost strategy that will likely improve outcomes for dogs in animal shelters.
(emphasis mine). This paper, like many others in the field, are saying thatbreed identification based on visual identification is unreliable.
PearlSt82 (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)- If we were talking about used cars, I don't think this would be considered an ethical business practice. Geogene (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- We're not talking about used cars, particularly because they are not comparable at all. With used cars, you always know the make, model and year. An auto mechanic is never forced to examine an unidentified vehicle and guess these things. This, however, is often the case with shelter dog intake, as shelter employees are often tasked with identifying dogs of unknown parentage a breed based on visual information only. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- If we were talking about used cars, I don't think this would be considered an ethical business practice. Geogene (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think thats an accurate representation of that paper. The last sentence in the abstract is
- It's strange, though, that there are peer reviewed papers on this subject that advocate for withholding information about breed background to prospective adopters, isn't it? [5] (this one is not AVMA). Is that ethical? Geogene (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Are you saying the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association is intentionally downplaying public health risks so they can make money? PearlSt82 (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: I definitely agree that is policy as a general matter, but if you look closely at many of the "peer reviewed studies" in this particular area, they are almost all commissioned by advocacy organizations or those with a vested interest in the adoption industry. Pit bulls are exceedingly difficult to adopt out and comprise the vast majority of dogs in shelters. And yet, they are the most expensive dogs to maintain because of the inherent health problems most of them suffer from due to years of bad breeding. So a lot of organizations have a monied interest in "fluff" studies designed to make them more appealing and play down negative qualities so that a) more people adopt them and b) more people donate to help them fund their expenses. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Case by case basis sounds good to me. But all things being equal, peer reviewed journals should be preferred (and the issue that you're highlighting is why some form of review/secondary research would be best of all, but I'm not sure how typical that is in the field). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: When we're talking about sources that are WP:BIASED because the studies are funded by advocacy organizations and they present findings that are facially illogical, that's a problem. No one said every source is subject to bias, but it needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Shelters have traditionally labeled dogs by apparent breed, the paper is arguing that they begin to withhold this information because it makes it less likely that undesirable dogs (pit bulls) will be adopted. And the reason they don't get adopted is because, as a breed/group, they have a reputation for violence. Geogene (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- This, and many other papers posted on this talk page, note that the practice of visual identification is unreliable. PearlSt82 (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a partisan opinion that not everyone agrees with. Specifically, the Ohio Supreme Court found in State v. Anderson,
Nonetheless, pit bull dogs are distinctive enough that the ordinary dog owner knows or can discover with reasonable effort whether he or she owns such a dog
[6]. Geogene (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)- This is a case from 1990/91 written decades before much of the research in this area has been conducted. PearlSt82 (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Dogs haven't changed much since 1990. A poodle is still a poodle, a pit bull is still a pit bull. People are still able to tell the difference without specialized training. And pit bulls are apparently considered undesirable for adoption. Haven't you noticed that when a paper claims that you can't distinguish between different dog breeds visually, and then claims that pit bulls are discriminated against, that this is something of a contradiction? Geogene (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- @PearlSt82: I find it very baffling that we keep hearing the same misinformation from pit bull advocacy organizations repeated here verbatim. To say dogs are classified based on breed is "based on visual information only" is grossly misleading. Dog breeds possess distinct physical characteristics and it is not that complex to differentiate them. Courts have repeatedly found that anyone of reasonable intelligence can identify a dog's breed. Just like any reasonable person can tell the difference between a cat and a dog based on "visual information," yet you would never hear someone blur that line. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Let's also note the fundamental inconsistency in these "academic papers" commissioned by advocacy groups and adoption agencies that, one the one hand, tout breed-categorized data allegedly showing pit bulls to be less dangerous based on very specific qualifications and conditions, and then dismiss unfavorable (and frankly more straight-forward measuresments, i.e. bites per year, hospital visits, etc.) breed-based categorizations as inherently unreliable. Hm. It's almost like these sources apply a double standard to affirm their own findings and dismiss contrary information. *Scratches head*. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Again, this information is not coming from "pit bull advocacy organizations". Its appearing in peer-reviewed journals. Citations:
- Comparison of adoption agency breed identification and DNA breed identification of dogs, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 2009;12(3):253-62.
- Comparison of Visual and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs and Inter-Observer Reliability, American Journal of Sociological Research, 2013; 3(2): 17-29
- Inconsistent identification of pit bull-type dogs by shelter staff, The Veterinary Journal, Volume 206, Issue 2, November 2015, Pages 197-202
- Is that dog a pit bull? A cross-country comparison of perceptions of shelter workers regarding breed identification, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 2014;17(4):322-39. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2014.895904. Epub 2014 Mar 27.
- These are the sources making the claims - if you think these are unreliable because they're "commissioned by advocacy groups", then please say so directly referencing the paper. This would be far more helpful than vague rhetorical questions and pointing to court cases written 20+ years before these papers were written. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Basically this is an attempt to re-define what a breed is. But breeds are not a new thing, they've been around for centuries, and have always been recognized by morphology and pedigree. I don't think a handful of papers is going to do that. Geogene (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- These articles are authored by a small group of activists who write extensively on why pit bulls are impossible to accurately identify, essentially trying to give an academic imprimatur to a myth propagated by pit bull advocates and disproven in courts of law. Why do I call them activists? Aside from their academic writings, these same authors publish jointly in popular online outlets like Slate advocating for adopting pit bulls. If you start to scratch the surface, you'll see this same pattern repeat itself over and over. There is a huge lobby behind the pit bull adoption/PR machine, and we need to distinguish studies that are clearly influenced by it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for succinctly stating your argument against these sources. I'm not sure why you posted that Slate article however, as the authors of that article are not the same people as the authors of these papers. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- What? That Slate piece was written by Lisa M. Gunter, a Maddie's Fund Research Fellow and the lead author of the Plos One paper we were discussing yesterday [7]. Geogene (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, I was referring to the four papers above on visual id. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- What? That Slate piece was written by Lisa M. Gunter, a Maddie's Fund Research Fellow and the lead author of the Plos One paper we were discussing yesterday [7]. Geogene (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking hypothetically, because I need to look into this some more, if you have a small and easily identifiable group of researchers that are funded by the same people, have overlapping affiliations, and that express effectively the same ideological viewpoints in public, is it still WP:SECONDARY when they cite each other in that area? Geogene (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for succinctly stating your argument against these sources. I'm not sure why you posted that Slate article however, as the authors of that article are not the same people as the authors of these papers. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Again, this information is not coming from "pit bull advocacy organizations". Its appearing in peer-reviewed journals. Citations:
- Dogs haven't changed much since 1990. A poodle is still a poodle, a pit bull is still a pit bull. People are still able to tell the difference without specialized training. And pit bulls are apparently considered undesirable for adoption. Haven't you noticed that when a paper claims that you can't distinguish between different dog breeds visually, and then claims that pit bulls are discriminated against, that this is something of a contradiction? Geogene (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is a case from 1990/91 written decades before much of the research in this area has been conducted. PearlSt82 (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a partisan opinion that not everyone agrees with. Specifically, the Ohio Supreme Court found in State v. Anderson,
It means that we are dealing with a WP:BIASED source and that other, more objective ones are preferable. Especially when the biased sources make WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims that defy common sense and widely available stats. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Victoria Voith, who authored some of the above articles, is a member of the National Canine Research Council, an organization opposed to pit bull legislation. And it is itself -- guess what -- a "subsidiary" of Animal Farm Foundation, an organization dedicated specifically to advocating for pit bull ownership and anti-pit bull legislation. Not even dogs in general, just pit bulls. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Another major contributor, Amy Marder, is a member of the "National Canine Research Council," which is essentially a front or subsidiary for a pit bull lobbying organization. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- It depends - the area and the text involved would be the deciding factors and could differ, a single categorical mandate seems inappropriate. In general I would say the article should use RS appropriate for a line and not convey popular press as a scientific fact particularly in health and safety areas, lede should follow WP:LEAD and be a summary of the body, and that by WP:WEIGHT the body should give more space by prominence which is not to say state it as something it isn’t. If the text is making a statement about general reputation or famous event, then popular press is fine - but if it is stating danger or scientific fact, then it needs an appropriate RS. It may help to look at the WP:MEDRS handling of such distinctions ‘general information’ and MEDPOP sections in particular. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- First off, the reason it's called WP:MEDRS and not WP:PUBLICHEALTHRS is because it's mainly intended to protect the readership from quack medicine, specifically. From what I've seen around Wikipedia, there's no consensus that it should be understood to apply to every article that could tangentially describe ways in which people hurt themselves, articles that have nothing to do with quack medicine such lightning strikes or the Colt AR-15, or this article, and if you did a community referendum to expand the scope of MEDRS to cover every conceivable public health issue there is, you would get a lot of pushback. Secondly, the point of MEDRS is that it's an application of the Precautionary Principle, to avoid promoting quack medicine that readers might use to harm themselves. Here, some people are, perversely, trying to use MEDRS to assert that pitbulls are not inherently dangerous to people, which appears to be somewhat controversial, and if wrong, will actually cause harm to the readership, and not prevent it. This is exactly the opposite of what MEDRS is intended to do. Geogene (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Bite pressure
This 2020 paper on bite pressure [9] says that biting force varies by breed, that some breeds of dog, including attack dogs, were selectively bred to produce devastating bites; and found (through modeling) that 1) brachycephalism is a driver of powerful bite ability in large dogs, and that 2) pits, rotts, and cane corsos have especially powerful bites, greater than 2,000 Newtons of force. Is this controversial? Geogene (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Generally literature states (including this paper) that the bite is stronger with a bigger skull. Some other papers in the area:
- Calibration of estimated biting forces in domestic canids: comparison of post-mortem and in vivo measurements, Journal of Anatomy
- Cranial dimensions and forces of biting in the domestic dog, Journal of Anatomy
- Bite Forces and Their Measurement in Dogs and Cats Frontiers in Veterinary Science
- Measurement of Bite Force in Dogs: A Pilot Study, Journal of Veterinary Dentistry
- I think its important to note that these are all primary studies and while they all more or less say that skull size is the determining factor in strength of bites, they're all inconsistent in numbers. For example, the 2020 paper portrays 2000 N as an outlier result, whereas the paper "Calibration of estimated biting forces in domestic canids" regularly shows dogs larger than 20kg biting at this level of force, and on the other end, "Measurement of Bite Force in Dogs: A Pilot Study" doesn't show any dog biting higher than 1394 N. I'm not aware of any secondary source that digests this information, particularly as it relates to pit bulls - a particularly problematic area when it comes to assigning force by breed, as "pit bulls" is an umbrella term that can encompass dogs ranging from as small as 35 lb to as large as 120 lb. PearlSt82 (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- @PearlSt82: This trend of questioning studies that reach one conclusion (breed-specific traits are relevant) and then forcing illogical claims from biased sources ("breed is impossible to identify") back into the article has to stop. This study presents explanatory and useful information that supplements, not contradicts, other available studies. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- First of all, the onus is on you, the person making the changes. Secondly, in regards to the content of your edits and why I reverted them: the AVMA doesn't "argue" that "that breed is a poor sole predictor of dog bites", they flat out state it in a peer-reviewed literature review. The issue regarding identification is also in a peer-reviewed journal, "Journal of Veterinary Behavior". WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to remove content from peer-reviewed secondary sources. For bite pressure, and the above sources, "A dog's bite strength is dependent on the size and strength of the dog, not its breed." is true. Pit bulls are not the only large breed dog, and studies have shown that pit bulls do not bite comparatively stronger than dogs of similar size. For the quote "The ASPCA said that, along with putative over-reporting, false reporting was a major contributor to public perceptions about the breed", this is directly attributed to the ASPCA, and not appearing in Wikivoice, and reflects the viewpoints of a major organization. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- @PearlSt82: This trend of questioning studies that reach one conclusion (breed-specific traits are relevant) and then forcing illogical claims from biased sources ("breed is impossible to identify") back into the article has to stop. This study presents explanatory and useful information that supplements, not contradicts, other available studies. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Pediatric dog bite injuries: a 5-year review of the experience at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia". Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 124(2): 551–558. August 2009.
{{cite journal}}
:|first=
missing|last=
(help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ Golinko, Michael S; Arslanian, Brian; Williams, Joseph K (2016). "Characteristics of 1616 Consecutive Dog Bite Injuries at a Single Institution". Clinical Pediatrics. 56 (4): 316–325. doi:10.1177/0009922816657153. PMID 27400935.
- ^ Tang, Jasmine; Jugpal, Arneja. "Are Dog Bites a Problem of Nature or Nurture?". Plast Surg (Oakv). PMID 30450351.
{{cite journal}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
(help)
- @PearlSt82: WP:ONUS applies to users seeking inclusion of content, not exclusion of content. You are seeking to include material that I trimmed. And these contradictory conclusions from allegedly "peer-reviewed studies" in many cases are commissioned by advocacy organizations, which explains why the conclusions seem so detached from reality.
- The ASPCA is an advocacy organization. They are in the business of raising money to care for and adopting out pit bulls.
- The line about "bite being dependent on size" is ridiculous. Different breeds obviously entail different sizes. This is a borderline tautological statement that adds nothign to the article.
- "Breed is a poor sole predictor of dog bites" again, flies in the face of data from other sources, and is, surprise, from another "study" by an organization with an agenda.
- I find it very concerning that obviously biased material is pushed into the article unquestioned and similarly reliable sources offering more neutral, different assessments are constantly met with objection. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- The ASPCA is a notable organization in this field and their activities encompass far more than pit bull rescue
- This is relevant as there are misrepresentations of a pit bulls biting force compared to other breeds of similar size
- "Breed is a poor sole predictor of dog bites" is from the American Veterinary Medical Association, the most prestigious veterinary organization and is the accreditation body for schools in the United States. This is hardly an "organization with an agenda".
- These are all reliable expert organizations in the field. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- The AMVA is closely aligned with the pit bull adoption/PR lobby and has released policy/advocacy statements on pit bulls. Like here, where they advocate against legislation or regulation of pit bulls specifically. They are not a neutral expert organization. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- I find it very concerning that obviously biased material is pushed into the article unquestioned and similarly reliable sources offering more neutral, different assessments are constantly met with objection. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Critique about pit bull breeding origin
Regarding this point, it's actually incorrect. Pit bulls were originally bred to protect children, not for bull baiting and dog fighting. They're called "nanny dogs" for a reason after all. Dog fighting wouldn't even exist until much later. UlvaMoonWolf (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- The nanny dog myth is completely false. There aren't any sources that mention it prior to 1970. Geogene (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- LOL. Citation needed. Citation needed indeed. Subject Matter Expert Supreme (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- This sounds like some dedicated Facebook group's attempt at revisionism. We can't publish anything based on fringe ideas. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The Fifth Estate's Pitbulls Unleashed as an external link
I don't see the problem with this external link [10] to a long-running Canadian investigative journalism program. Initially, Pearlst82 didn't like it because it was hosted on their official YouTube channel [11]. When I debunked that rationale, [12], they are now claiming it fails ELNO1, not containing a unique resource that a good article would include. I disagree; as journalistic coverage it also contains specific material about individual pitbull attacks which is educational but too deep to be covered in this article. As a full length video program, it also contains interviews, photographs, and video that are educational but not reproducible due to WP's text format and because of copyright, as found in WP:ELYES item 3. Geogene (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- An investigative journalistic piece doesn't rise to the level of an external link. You even said in your first edit that you intend to use it as an RS in the future. It should be treated as a potential source, not an EL. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- There's nothing about an EL that precludes it being converted into a source for something in the future. This is just Wikilawyering. Geogene (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- WP:ELNO item 1 clearly says: the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. "It being converted into a source for something in the future". is clearly covered by the "should be in the article" clause. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- It contains information that should be in the article. But it also contains information that would be beyond the scope of a good article, such as interviews. It also includes video of at least one attack scene that's unusable because it's copyrighted. Geogene (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- This piece contains edited interview clips, not full interviews. WP:ELYES says the level of detail is "interview transcripts", which refers to the transcripts of full interviews, not brief snippets used as a part of a larger piece. Nearly every source used for this article contains some information that would be beyond the scope to include in an encyclopedic article, including Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon, which is literally book length. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- It contains information that should be in the article. But it also contains information that would be beyond the scope of a good article, such as interviews. It also includes video of at least one attack scene that's unusable because it's copyrighted. Geogene (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- WP:ELNO item 1 clearly says: the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. "It being converted into a source for something in the future". is clearly covered by the "should be in the article" clause. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- There's nothing about an EL that precludes it being converted into a source for something in the future. This is just Wikilawyering. Geogene (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I posted this at the EL noticeboard. [13] Geogene (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Fifth Estate as an RS
This is not remotely a reliable source. Its a sensationalist piece of TV journalism that previously had to pay out the largest libel suit in Canadian history. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's an award-winning CBC investigative journalism program. Whether it's "sensationalist," well, that's just the opinion of a tendentious single-purpose account. If you can demonstrate some consensus other than your own revert button, go ahead and do so, but my supply of good faith has run out. Geogene (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
"so there's a risk that the scientific literature on pit bulls has been influenced by money"
This is absolutely not present in the source cited and is OR as written. The full text of the cited source is: With such a small number of dog mauling cases and associated fatalities, it will remain diffi�cult to research whether breed-specific legislation is effective unless done on a national level over a period of several years.33 Furthermore, there is a lack of transparency within the current litera�ture surrounding breed-specific legislation in the United States. Advocates for and against breed�specific legislation rarely acknowledge when they receive funding or personal contributions from agencies that lobby on either side of the issue, and there are no efforts to promote such transparency. As a result, some of the most influential literature has received authorship from persons who have a high risk of bias, yet this is not disclosed.
. PearlSt82 (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes,
there's a risk that the scientific literature on pit bulls has been influenced by money
is exactly what that source quote means. Thanks. Now, please stop kneejerk reverting every one of my edits to the article, I view it as disruption, and I will escalate this to DR if you do not stop. Geogene (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)- Please do escalate. That source is not saying that. Its saying that both sides may have undisclosed interests, and provides no evidence for this in its citations. Its a major stretch to go from this to ALL "the scientific literature" having being "influenced by money. PearlSt82 (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- That's disingenuous because my text [14] does say it applies to both sides. And it clearly is talking about scientific literature relevant to pit bull hazards, in general. Geogene (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- The last clause of the sentence you added, "so there's a risk that the scientific literature on pit bulls has been influenced by money", does not give that impression. If you said "so there's a risk that the scientific literature on pit bulls, as well as pro-BSL advocacy, has been influenced by money", that might be a step in the right direction, but its still major SYNTH when the paper cites only four papers, to add a sentence applying this to the entirety of scientific writing on pit bulls, especially when none of these papers are cited in the current article.PearlSt82 (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- But it clearly is referring to the scientific literature relevant to BSL, and I see little point in haggling over a precise wording while you're still claiming that the entire thing is SYNTH. Geogene (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Because there is a major difference between "some" (what the source states) and "all" (what your sentence implies). It also does not say "scientific". PearlSt82 (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- These are vexatious objections. When scientists refer to the "the literature," that's a haughty and archaic reference to the scientific literature relevant to their field. And, "the literature" can be thought of as a grammatically singular collective entity composed of many parts. One garbage paper can be thought of as a bad influence on the "the (scientific) literature," without implying that the entirety of the scientific literature was compromised. Geogene (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Would you object to Wikipedia:Third_opinion as a first step in the DR process if noone else chimes in a reasonable amount of time? I strongly disagree with your rationale, but Wikipedia is a consensus based site and this page is unfortunately not as watched as other controversial issues. I'd like to avoid endless back and forth if possible. PearlSt82 (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- You don't need my approval to do that. Nevertheless, the source quote
....rarely acknowledge when they receive funding or personal contributions As a result, some of the most influential literature has received authorship from persons who have a high risk of bias, yet this is not disclosed.
and the article quotethere's a risk that the scientific literature on pit bulls has been influenced by money
are exactly equivalent in meaning. and it's ridiculous (and disruptive) that you're wikilawyering this. Geogene (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- You don't need my approval to do that. Nevertheless, the source quote
- Would you object to Wikipedia:Third_opinion as a first step in the DR process if noone else chimes in a reasonable amount of time? I strongly disagree with your rationale, but Wikipedia is a consensus based site and this page is unfortunately not as watched as other controversial issues. I'd like to avoid endless back and forth if possible. PearlSt82 (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- These are vexatious objections. When scientists refer to the "the literature," that's a haughty and archaic reference to the scientific literature relevant to their field. And, "the literature" can be thought of as a grammatically singular collective entity composed of many parts. One garbage paper can be thought of as a bad influence on the "the (scientific) literature," without implying that the entirety of the scientific literature was compromised. Geogene (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Because there is a major difference between "some" (what the source states) and "all" (what your sentence implies). It also does not say "scientific". PearlSt82 (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- But it clearly is referring to the scientific literature relevant to BSL, and I see little point in haggling over a precise wording while you're still claiming that the entire thing is SYNTH. Geogene (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- The last clause of the sentence you added, "so there's a risk that the scientific literature on pit bulls has been influenced by money", does not give that impression. If you said "so there's a risk that the scientific literature on pit bulls, as well as pro-BSL advocacy, has been influenced by money", that might be a step in the right direction, but its still major SYNTH when the paper cites only four papers, to add a sentence applying this to the entirety of scientific writing on pit bulls, especially when none of these papers are cited in the current article.PearlSt82 (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- That's disingenuous because my text [14] does say it applies to both sides. And it clearly is talking about scientific literature relevant to pit bull hazards, in general. Geogene (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Please do escalate. That source is not saying that. Its saying that both sides may have undisclosed interests, and provides no evidence for this in its citations. Its a major stretch to go from this to ALL "the scientific literature" having being "influenced by money. PearlSt82 (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)