Talk:American Pit Bull Terrier/Archive 1

Negative stereotypes

i'm planning on putting in a section about the negative stereotypes and myths surrounding pit bulls, as well as the current trend in the media of focusing only on the bad things that a few pit bull do, etc. if anyone else wants to start it, of course, be my guest. also, i only partially wiki'd the article, and it probably needs a little proofreading. i finally got the basis written, and really needed to get it up asap. Lachatdelarue 01:43, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, I did "a little proofreading." :-) Looks good. Thanks. Elf | Talk 03:53, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I know the 'need to get it up--now!' feeling. Good work, Lach. Spotted a couple of minute things; fixed 'em. I think the article would benefit from a discussion of the myths, as you say, and also a reference to pit bulls in popular culture, the heretofore positive image of the 'nanny dog' etc.

Change of mind: this may be adequately covered in the Pit bull article? Quill 23:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

At the end, you use the word 'Amstaff'. If, as I suspect, this refers to American Staffordshire Terrier, you should clarify by putting it in brackets near the beginning under Appearance.

I also suggest that under 'why the confusion' we reference the fact that owners are being advised to refer to their breeds as Amstaffs etc. to distance themselves from anti-pitty bias. There have been some nasty fights about the practice.

Quill 23:11, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I made some edits. If you disagree, go ahead and change. Quill 23:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Animal rights and behavior

Hey im writing a paper on Animal Rights and im focusing mainly on Pit Bull Terriers. Ive realized that Pit Bulls have stated acting weirdly and i happen to have proof that just happens to be on this web site that states that Pit Bulls are sweet tempered dogs... i have reason to beleive that it is the owners have something to do with the weird behavior can someone please help me figue what is going out. Because if it is abusvie people than i would like to help and alert my school about this discrimination!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanx!!!

Shelby was here!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.97.211.42 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is the Pit Bull treated this way? Is it because the public cant see what these people are doing to them and see them as a hazard to the public? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.97.211.42 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As this is a complete outrage I beleive that the student of AMS should ban togeather and protect these dogs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowcat60 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Please enter a username/or other id if no wiki-user on the talk page (4*~). Note that since the beginning one of the breed charecteristics of the pit bull is that it may/will not attack humans. However it is possible for people to specificly teach it to do so, as is possilbe with any dog breed. ShotokanTuning 09:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason why pits are treated so badly by criminals has to do with money, or lack thereof. Most people who do this sort of thing are dead poor and live in run down crime ridden areas. For a seventeen year old kid with nothing and nowhere to go, a guy who has money to burn selling drugs looks like a really good deal, and a dogman even better: he can get money from fighting his dogs and deals from the dope dealer. (A lot of dog fighting rings and drug rings are related crimes, for example, in such cases in L.A. and NY they are partially handled by the Narcotics dept.) The welfare of the dog is an afterthought: in a ring a dogman will select from the litter and will treat it badly to make it near crazed. (Google pitbulls +abuse and you will see up close and personal.) To the dogman the dog is a commodity, nothing more. If it loses a fight or gets sick it gets thrown away. If it refuses to fight it gets thrown away or worse. Even way back when dogfighting was a legitimate practice pitbulls didn't have to fight or die: they were usually retired. Today the dog, desparate for a crumb of kindness, will fight, fight, fight for its master, only to be rewarded by dying somewhere alone in a lot.

Pits also get sensationalized by the media for these reasons: they are consistent with the average size of a household dog in the U.S. They are associated with crime and "thug life". They were bred since time immemorial to bite down and not let go and some are being bred for all out nastiness, resulting in some nasty incidents. In short, they scare people. It makes the media more money to keep reporting killer dogs than to report the truth that if the public wants the incidents to stop they have to go back to the seventeen year old kid and fix his situation first.

Otherwise, the likelihood of a pitbull biting you is about average, in fact it is less than some toy breeds. In good, responsible hands they can be wonderful. I live in downtown Manhattan and I have witnessed these dogs firsthand; a lot of people around here adopt them. I have seen them happily playing ball on a Saturday with a bunch of kids in the park, out with their masters shopping at the farmer's market at Union Square, and allowing strangers to pet them and say hello. Obviously you don't see too many at dog parks, but if you do see one there is no real reason to run for your life. Shadowcat60 23:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Pitbulls popularity should not be increased! Why would you want more of these dogs going into neglectful, and/OR unprepared homes is beyond my comprehension. Just recently when walking my Cattle dog puppy I was confronted by two fully grown possibly mixed American pittbull's (probably strays) who preceded friendly enough to sniff him before unexpectedly becoming more aggresive. I eventually went into a building and waited five minutes for them to leave. Seriously if something had happened I wouldn't know what to do, they were huge and powerfully built. NUMBERS SHOULD BE LIMITED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.132.68 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[b] I own seven american pit bull terriers. Three of them were fighting dogs that were rescued. They are amazing dogs, and though they cannot be kept together or with other dogs, they are just as loving towards people as a pit bull should be. In fact, most fighters own the most stable pit bulls of the breed.

A person who is fighting their pits for the love of the breed (rather than street-thugs just looking for some money or trying to look tough) knows these dogs through and through. They cull any man aggression and breed/fight only the most human-stable dogs. And the proof is in the fact that they can, in the ring with the dogs, pull the dogs apart, urge them on with a friendly pat, or pull them out if the need arises.

So, in essence, a true game dog belonging to a true fighter is just as safe, if not more safe, around humans than the average pit bull out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiotMonday (talk • contribs) 00:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I have to say is that it really is all about the owner, ABPT have bad reputations due to what owners would have them do. They are durable and don't whimper out when they are hurt, in fact they just keep going, that is why they make "Good fighting dogs". I for one obviously don't agree with the fighting, it is a terrible thing to put animals up to! I own a ABPT and he is the cutest sweetest dog ever, he will however not get a long with other dogs very well. Mostly due to our lack of creating a social environment for him with other dogs. Overall though, they make wonderful breeds! In fact, when it comes to breeds who bite the most, try looking at all the toy dogs and small terrier dogs. They are the ones who bite the most. I used to be scared of Rotwielers (Sp?) because there were some friends of mine who had gotten bit by them. ABPT are just victims of terrible publicity about the dog. They were specifically trained to be a fighting breed against other dogs, and that has given them a bad name. All dogs big and small can have a good healthy happy lifestyle due to the owners, and all dogs can be aggressive due to the owners. An ABPT is not a dog for those who just want a dog for the heck of it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.96.41.221 (talk) 17:57, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

We have quite a long history of misinformation, sensationalism, and misguided interventions in solving problems ranging from drug abuse, racism, gun related crime, sexism, and aggression in dogs. The treatment of the American Pitbull Terrier is just one more example of the public attempting to solve a problem they have not investigated. The swallowing of media opinions or values is mind boggling.

In the case of drug abuse, we tried to remove drugs. In the case of racism and sexism, the written manifestations of the beliefs were the focus of intervention. In the case of gun related crime, the guns are focused upon. And in the case of dog agression, we are attempting to remove the dogs popularly believed to be associated with attacks.

In all of these cases, we have largely failed, despite certain successes. Racism and sexism have simply become covert. We have made little progress in a war on drugs. Guns are everywhere. Specific to the problem of dog attacks, we will never solve this problem by focusing on dogs. People's values must be addressed. Education, rather than litigation, will solve this. If we take pit bulls away from those who raise person aggressive dogs, they will simply buy other dogs to be person aggressive. People have always been the problem, and controlling them has never worked. We must teach them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.207.235 (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment from a pitty-lover.. I volunteer at an animal shelter, and would recommend that the destroying of fighting dogs by animal control is not due to their lack of appeal. Rather, they are destroyed because horrible humans have turned them into killing machines, and there is no reliable way of retrianing them. Therefore, they are a threat to those around them (both human and canine). Our shelter adopts out dozens of lovely pits and pit mixes, and I, for one, look forward to hugging them every week! Thanks for all your hard work! [FlowerGirl, 1/14/2005] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.31.119 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

For the commenter above. Just because the dogs have been fought with other dogs doens't make them "killing machines"! Dog aggression does not equal people aggression! [pitlover, 1/26/2006] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.113.7.99 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Very true. There are a number of breeds that have a reputation for not being good with other dogs (Chows and Sharpeis come to mind). Some people get lucky; our apbt mix loves other dogs and is good with our cat. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 22:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I was raised with a male pitbull from the time I was 8 until we had to put him to sleep when he was 14 making me 23. He was my bestfriend and my protector. In 2005 we got another pitbull puppy from the SPCA and she has turned out to be a scaredy cat who loves all animals and wants to play all the time. She surely gives fodder to the idea that pitbulls are the clowns of the animal kingdom!! I am a huge animal lover and am especially fond of this breed because my experience with the roughly 100 pits that I have come across have all been very sweet, cuddly animals. I believe that so many of the problems that are reported in the media are due to human error. No small child should be left alone with any grown dog for obvious reasons that seem to me to be common sense. When I was little my parents were often criticized for keeping "such a volatile" animal around her child and my mother put in terms that they could better understand. She said that she had no worries about the dog being around me, but if said person were to go near me they should fear for themselves because my dog would truly die to protect me as if I was his own child. Pitbulls perhaps more than any other breed attach themselves to their humans and it is a bond that is difficult to break. In my experience, these dogs will only show aggression when they sense a threat to their domain or humans. What I have noticed is that animals in general seem to have an honesty about them that allows them to sense something about some humans that they just don't feel comfortable with even when we might not see that characteristic because we ignore many of our instincts. So when a dog shows aggresion at someone that might not make sense to you, it may be because they are paying attention to something that we ignore. I have recently battled the stigmas revolving around this breed and I recently realized that it is the fear of what is possible that bother us most. The reason we fear these animals more than others is because of the sheer damage that they could do in such a short period of time. A good example is a hammerhead shark and a great white shark; both are sharks but if you knew there was a chance of being attacked by either you would fear the great white more simply because of the shear damage that it could do to you in such a small period of time. Not that all sharks will attack you, but the thought that a threat that big is out there, is one that is unsettling to us as a species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accalea (talk • contribs) 07:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Pit Bulls Are Amazing And Caring Animals If You Toke The Time To Understand Them ! =D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.235.38 (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Pit Bulls truly have an exaggerated and undeserved reputation

I did not read the comments posted by others so if this one happens to be similar to other posts, it is not intentional.

I am an animal lover and I especially love dogs and I cannot understand the bad press that any dog with the classification "pit bull." The fact of the matter is the quantity of these attacks are highly exaggerated to make people believe they happen on a regular basis, similar to shark attacks when in fact there is probably only a handfull of attacks each year if that many. More people die from being struck by lightning than attacks by these dogs and shark bites combined.

Furthermore, nobody seems to take into account how the animal that supposedly attacked a person was treated. It is a fact that most of the pit bulls that have attacked or killed a human were in fact abused, neglected or raised in such a brutal fashion (usually for fighting) that its no wonder the animal attacked, having a rough backround would leave it bitter with humans and quite frankly not knowing anything else. However no one seems to take in account the dog's backround of how it was raised; its the dog's fault because it was born, it’s the dog‘s fault because the owner takes advantage of the dog‘s reputation for their usually illegal projects.

This scenario is not much different than a child who's parent neglect or abuse them that they tend to be rather bitter and have a negative point of view of the world based on his/her experiences or they turn to a life of crime whether its drug use, theft or in some cases murder sometimes even mass murder. For some reason it appears that when an animal (any animal) attacks a human despite being mentally inferior to humans working solely on instinct that SOMEHOW upon killing a human it is supposed to know better and a result the animal is usually destroyed along with many others for being that species. If animals could hold grudges like that against us for every time we hunted or killed one of them, humans would have probably been extinct a long time ago.

Anyways I kind of drifted off topic. Nobody seems to seems to realize the fact that if the dog is raised and treated a certain ways that its going to come out a certain way just like a person would. THE AKC highly recommends the breed and I think I can safely say they have a high say and actually know the facts from myths. There is a myth that a pit bull has a bite of 30,000 PSI. That has got to be the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. A crocodile who has one of the strongest bites in the animal kingdom has average bite of 3,000 PSI and you are going to convince me that an 85 lb dog can bite harder than a 2,000 lb crocodile? I don’t think so.

I’ve seen too many families own a pit bull who treat their animal properly and the animal is more gentle than you can imagine to just sit by and watch this dog be unjustly prosecuted usually based on limited or ignored facts and highly exaggerated myths. The media, just like any other problems in this world take something that maybe accounts for 1% of a whole and flip it around to where the negative image supposedly accounts for nearly 100% of the whole. A perfect example of how the statistics are flipped around would be the issue of teens who supposedly kill because of watching a movie or playing a game when 99% of young people who may be exposed to violence/sex in entertainment turn into law biding citizens despite the media tries so hard to portray the opposite and its unfair that a law biding society has to yield because maybe the 1% will take something the wrong way and do something bad.

This is a great comparison to the position the pit bull is in; how the whole breed suffers an exaggerated and pretty much false reputation for incidents that portray to less than 1% of the pit bull population. Even those who are responsible for injuring or even killing someone I fail to understand how that can possibly reflect then tire breed. Its like saying if a white man murders someone for no apparent reason that all white men are potential killers based on that one incident. But we do categorize white men based on that incident because we know that would be flat out ludicrous. So why do we do it to animals?

Pit bulls are not bad dogs. If raised and trained properly they are the ideal household pet a fact again also acknowledged by the AKC who again knows more about dog breeds than just about anyone else on the planet. I have shared this viewpoint with numerous people and its amazing the folks with two brain cells in between them seem to acknowledge the facts while the ignorant who honestly cannot back up their position with facts or even an argument of any kind besides saying “because”.

Thank you for reading this I apologize for the long length and possibly going off topic once or twice in order to make some comparisons. I just hope some folks will read what I wrote and maybe learn something about this breed that may allow them to shift their viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.246.157.238 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

i'm a witness that the pit bull really does have a bad reputation. i was very leery when my son brought home a american pit bull terrior as he called her the red nose. i was afraid to have this type of breed of dogs, but now i know that all the bad press on the pit was truly unfair, she grew on me quickly and now its love at first sight. she is very protective of me but that common of any breed. one thing i must say is that she is the smartest of any dog that i have had in the last 45years. mae 7-17-2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheba1 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It couldn't be love at first sight, then, but never mind. Personally I'd be wary of owning a dog bred for fighting. Maybe, if they wanted, the aggression could be bred out of them as was done with the bulldog, but that is unlikely to ever happen. 64.231.14.254 11:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wary about a dog bred for fighting? (Scratching head) Breeding the aggression out of them? (Scratching head even more.) You seem to be under the impression that this breed is inherently aggressive and you confuse dog aggression with people aggression. (Ask any veterinarian: they are distinctly different behaviors.) On some other notes there are dozens of dog breeds that "don't play nice with others," not just pit bulls, and there are many that at one time or another are or have been used for fighting. I will give you that there are idiots out there who do attempt to make little Cujos out of some pit bulls, and dogs from these people should be avoided at all costs, but I know for a fact there is almost nothing to be scared of. (Personally I can't wait until I can secure my own place and adopt one from this breed: I have yet to meet another dog breed who has such a lust for life and is so loyal to its master....) Shadowcat60 06:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[1] Maybe you'll find this link interesting.It astounded me to discover that almost any short haired dog that attacks a person is automaticly labeled a "pit bull". —Preceding unsigned comment added by APBTgirl (talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The 'fawn pit bull' picture

Are you sure that's an actual APBT? It looks an awfully lot like a Bullmastiff. It's not really a good picture, either; you can hardly see the dog's head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythicaldog (talk • contribs) 02:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That dog isn't nearly large enough to be an adult Bull Mastiff. The proportions aren't quite right either. According to the source website for the image, that dog is an APBT named "Bubu"[2]. Dick Clark 16:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[Interjected] Yeah, that definitely does not look anything like a bull mastiff...my buddy has a couple of those and I have an APBT that looks exactly like the dog in this pic. -Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.106.100 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are many unscrupulous breeders and buyers who think that even dogs need to be supersized. That breeding for quality is old fashioned and your dog should be gimmicky. No, I don't approve of dog fighting, but when a dog no longer serves a utilitarian purpose it soon succumbs to breeder fancy. I don't know if that's a APBT or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is. Nor would I be surprised if it has Bullmastiff or AB blood in it. Most APBT's that have attacked humans weren't bred by committed breeders of pit-men, they were bred by thugs (who think gaurd work and dog-fighting are the same thing/require same traits). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.190.89.143 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The fawn dog may very well be an apbt, but it doesn't fit the standards for what a true apbt is, being too large around the chest and too tall. Todays, apbts have, sadly, a wide range of looks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiotMonday (talk • contribs) 02:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That fawn dog is a gorgeous example of an American Pit Bull Terrier. I think it conforms nicely to the standard described by the adba although it is difficult to tell with the dog sitting down. That dog definitely has the look in the eye of a well bred apbt in my opinion. Pit Bulls have always come in a wide variety of sizes. There is no weight defined in the standard but rather a weight to size ratio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.160.149 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice revamp

Thanks, mystery editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boinger (talk • contribs) 15:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I thinik this is all crap. I have been reading a few things about the "pitbulls" on the things and none of it seems right. I have 2 amstaffs and 1 AMPT. This things says that Amstaffs are larger boned and broader then AMPBT. That is not right at all. My amstaffs are thinner and have smaller heads and necks then the AMPBT. Every AMPBT that I have seen are always more bulky then an amstaff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.81.183 (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This has one version of the breed's history.

The other has it that the apbt is the living embodiment of the ancient alaunt and other proto-mastiffs. This is the dog that actually fought with bulls and is the true bulldog. We should expand the rather boring history given in this article with this alternative viewpoint. BulldogPete 07:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the post above, breeds like this were bred for bull fighting. I don't really think they are meant for dog fighting as they bite and hold, are pretty muscle bound and have bodies that are clearly reinforced for blunt trauma. They no doubt can fight other dogs but I don’t think that was their purpose in the beginning, I also think that it is more of a wrestling match with bullfighting dogs going at it, with deaths being relatively unlikely.

On the other hand the little Bedlington terrier and Irish terrier (known as ‘red devil’) have loose skin (the announcer during a dog show said this one time, so I checked my Airedale and she does have lots of loose skin compared to my friends dogs!), protective fur that kind of hides where the body actually is, quick lithe bodies that would cause nasty wounds if they bit and whipped their body. They also have nasty long sharp teeth, it is known that Bedlingtons were used to fight badgers; I just saw a show where a fully grown coyote or wolf got schooled by a badger.

It is also interesting to note that I have found that ‘pit-bulls’, bull terriers and other heavily built dogs that seem like they would be bullfighters have a fairly even disposition while terriers seem to be high-strung and well, kind of insane. I think the problem with ‘pit-bulls’ is the owners not the breed itself.

I guess my question is: Why would bull fighting dogs and dogs meant for dogfighting have the same characteristics? Aren’t the two activities quite different? I mean I saw a bull terrier or staffie fighting a bull on RealTV and it looked damn good at it, and it kind of occurred to me why these kinds of dogs are so heavily built when the bull sent the dog rolling away for 30 feet with its head and the dog came right back. Are the people organizing the dogfighting even know what they are doing? Do we have a clear idea about dogfighting and which breeds actually did it back when it was regulated and popular? What are the characteristics of a good fighting dog? [ Johnny ] 17:42, 29 May 2006 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.14.28 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I just looked up the page on dogfighting and it says that in Tosa fighting it is like a wrestling match with the winner pinning the loser. Interesting.[ Johnny ] 17:48, 29 May 2006 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.14.28 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To answer the question, you'd have to go back into a pitbull's family tree.

The APBT (and the Staffie, too) are direct descendants of the English Bulldog. The original bulldog didn't look like the froggy one we know today, but rather was much bigger and bred for bull baiting. It was bred to clamp on to the end of the bull's snout and never let go, and bets were taken to see how long the dog lasted.

However, the breed was lacking an ingredient common in modern pits: a never say die attitude. That is where and why the terrier lineage was added. Terriers are dogs that were originally bred to never back down, to ignore pain, and to act quickly under fire. In a ring a pure bulldog would be useless because he would wimp out too quickly and his size would make him a little bit ungainly (it takes a little longer for a bullmastiff to turn around than a pitbull, but that little space of time would give an opponent the upper hand.) It is also of note that the terrier bloodline would have allowed his master to participate in ratting as 19th century London or Dublin would have been full of them and the dog could also provide a means for regular work.

In summation, the disciplines are similar, but not entirely the same. What is true is that the bull/terrier breeds of today have all the hallmarks of what a dogman wanted: brute strength and an instinct to never let go from the bulldog, but speed and smarts from the terrier. Shadowcat 60 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowcat60 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You have it exactly wrong. The brachycephalic "bulldog" (smushy nose) was bred down from the bulldog/pit for its comical looks, probably by crossing the bulldog with a pug. The stuff about the pushed-in snout being beneficial to a dog's breathing while clamped down on a bull are apocryphal and illogical. There is abundant proof of bulldog/pit type dogs in art throughout history. These were the bulldogs, and they were in existence long before the 1800s. HedgeFundBob 21:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said that it originally had the smushy nose, nor have I ever said it would be beneficial to a dog clamped down on a bull's nose. Actually, I was going on information I had garnered from the very pictures you mention, as well as from bulldog sites. Shadowcat60 10:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Slanted

This article makes pit bulls seem like kind and loving dogs and Im pretty sure its well known that there are ALOT of attacks from pit bulls, perhaps the most attacks made by any breed of dogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspensti (talk • contribs) 23:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confusing Pit Bull Terriers with Pit Bulls. I removed the POV tag. 66.229.160.94 15:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article is closer to the truth: Pits aren't particularly dangerous, especially when one considers the fact that millions of homes have them as pets without a problem and its only a small portion that do cause mayhem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.70.13 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This whole article need citations (e.g. But considering the fact that pit bull type dogs are the most popular dog in America). This is an encylopedia - not a pit bull fan club. I can't believe someone hasn't taken the time to footnote some of these obvious POV sections (IMO almost the entire article). If I'm wrong - prove it with footnotes (let's see the backup data)...otherwise, I'ld significant portions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.38.51 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

The statistics listed here are inaccurate and don't appear to have been researched. "It can be estimated" for example. The CDC( http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf ) keeps real statistics on this. For example, German Shepherds are in 3rd place, not 2nd, after "pit bull types" and rottweilers. I'll find some time and do some edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.112.104 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"Small children" disclaimer

I would recommend moving the line about APBTs not being left unattended around small children to the section about APBT behavior. It seems to me that this is not information that belongs in the introductory paragraph. [everyoneisjosh 9/22/06] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everyoneisjosh (talk • contribs) 00:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree (and it is discussed elsewhere in the article). The same could be said for any large breed of dog. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of percentage

The section that describes fatal dog attacks does not flow well linking the difference between saying pit bull or pit bull type dogs (21%) and then later saying 5% or fewer. Im sure there is logic behind the two numbers yet there is little exegesis of the "facts/research." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.169.152.185 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Stubby

The section linking to famous pit bulls includes a link to Sergeant Stubby, but Stubby's article claims that he is "of unknown breed." I suggest the link be removed if this is the case. Boubelium 07:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Stubby is a well known and well recognized traditionally sized American Pit Bull Terrier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.68.210.59 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

watch dog

I have an APBT, and, contrary to the section about watch dogs, Harley is an excellent watch dog. He would probably watch a thief enter the house, watch the house get cleaned out, and then if confronted, hide in a corner and pee himself. Great watch dog.... <G>

Seriously, he is VERY gentle with my children, and the part about needing a strong hand is true - the kids have gotten used to the fact that when he's happy and his tail is wagging like mad (most of the time), they avoid his tail because they WILL get knocked down - only to have Harley lick them once they do get back up. The kids almost act like it's a game with Harley.... NDCompuGeek 00:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That may be true, but the breed is intended to be a horrible watchdog. Any barking, growling, or aggression towards humans is undesirable, even if it's protection. In producing the breed, any aggression towards humans at all was ruled and the dog was put down or not bred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiotMonday (talk • contribs) 02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My APBT was a rescue from the Humane Society. APBTs are among the breeds that have to test as behaviorally PERFECT to qualify for adoption. A "Good Dog" isn't good enough. Only perfect Pit Bulls survive to be put up for adoption. So I agree completely that ANY aggression toward humans is completely undesirable, even if the dog's protecting his people. My dog would also hide in a corner and pee if someone broke into the house! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellahellfire (talk • contribs) 21:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Maltrained?

There is no such word in English. Maltreated is possibly what you were looking for. 64.231.12.136 19:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

very POV links

what's going on in the links section? There seems to have quite a few added, and they all are about dogs that attacked people. OK, I'm sure it happens, but not NEARLY as often as these links are trying to portray.... NDCompuGeek 13:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, in my view. Currently attacks by "pit bulls" is the current news fad that gets lots of attention. As such, there may very well be a bias by news organizations to devote more coverage to "pit bull" attacks than other types of attacks. Further, there is little information provided on size of the "pit bull" population. "Pit bull" type dogs are currently very popular as such, the relative danger of attack by any breed cannot be fully determined save by looking at the number of attacks by a breed/type relative to the total number of dogs of that breed/type. As such, I'd recommend keeping links to various incidents of dog attacks out of the article...unless we also start doing the same thing all other breeds and make some attempt to get some data on the relative risks. Bokatoh (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Additions section suggestion

As a bully lover, I really have to restrain myself from editing the page, put to others who are maybe a bit less biased than I am: what about a negative media section (to appease the anti-APBT lobby) or a section on precieved verses real (or myths, etc.).... Just a suggestion! NDCompuGeek 03:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Source of recent photo additions

I noticed that all of the recent photos that Cghiotto (talk · contribs) has added are taken from a breeder's site, that of Tom Garner. Though Garner has a disclaimer on his page that the "competition" he speaks of consists of legal activities such as weight pulling and what not, this site and others [3] suggest that in actuality the dogs are intended for fighting. I've already asked Cghiotto to verify that the uploaded photos from the Garner are indeed freely licensed, but I also have concerns about the page being dominated by photos of fighting dogs. Thoughts on this? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. While the APBTs history as a fighting dog should be noted (as it is), there's no reason to have the article dominated by images of alleged fighting dogs. Besides, the current picture is of a higher quality, not to mention a little more flattering to the breed. // 3R1C 15:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[Interjected] I agree. There should be a poll on whether or not it should be here. Also, its GFDL status is questionable. --DrBat 19:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I NEVER said dogs from tom Garner are dog fights, and i posted the pics as example of ADBA Standard dogs. This got to be a joke.

The Text talks about pitbulls and have a small part talking about dog fights.

I think this is a Encyclopedia and we should give information about what we are talking about.

NOBODY! is supporting dog fights here, and if we have a public photo taken by a someone that released to the media to ilustrate what pitbull fights are, we should use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cghiotto (talk • contribs) 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody will fill the page with fight pibull pics. I think you feel very ofended by the picture for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cghiotto (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A little web searching makes it clear that Garner's dogs are (or at least were at one time) intended for fighting (see these articles on Chinaman this site and others [4]. You also said on my talk page, "...And you insist to use a Red nose pitbull with no body that seems more like a pet bull as pic of the page..."; as if there's something wrong with using a pet's picture for the article? I don't have a reference to back this up, but I'm fairly certain that the majority of dog owners (and even ABPT owners) own dogs as pets rather than as status symbols or as a "sporting dog," (whatever sport that may be). ? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fighting picture

Should that photo even be there? Apart from the poor taste (it's enough to know that dogfighting occurs, we don't have to see it), I wonder about the sanity of whoever took the picture and posted it. 64.231.14.254 11:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is a encyclopedia, and the Breed was created to dogfight, but that was a long time ago, we all know that real pitbulls have a love for people and most of them dont like other dogs, there are the ones that are loveable with everybody.

People cross their pitbulls with no criteria just looking the colors and a good looking instead of breeding for inteligence, obedience and standard.

Today the dog fight is ilegal ( i support that ) and like any other dog that is bred to hunt or protect castles or watever are used as pets and are amazing animals, but we cannot keep away the history or the facts about the breed. Thats why theres a dog fight picture there.

is a Ilustrative photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cghiotto (talk • contribs) 18:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This concludes that pit bull terriers are fierce dogs. they have killed people in their day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.85.62.248 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

WRONG. American Pit Bull Terriers were created for bullbaiting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.56.8 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the historical time line makes this highly improbable. England banned bull and bear baiting in 1835 after public acceptance of the practice had been in steady decline for many years (a similar ban attempt was narrowly defeated more than 30 years earlier, indicating there was sizable public opposition to this practice for quite a long time). Though dog fighting was banned by the same law, enforcement efforts mainly concentrated on bull-baiting because public acceptance of dog fighting was more favorable.

By 1850, bull-baiting had all but disappeared in both England and the US, making it illogical to think anyone would invest considerable time and energies to develop a new bull-baiting breed, given that dog fighting in the US was flourishing toward the last quarter of the 19th century. The last known "true" bull-baiting breed was the famous Old English Bulldog, which had already fallen out of favor when the ban was enacted and soon became extinct due to lack of interest in perpetuating bull-baiting breeds.

After 1850, there is no known or documented breed that could credibly be described as developed for bull-baiting, at least none that contributed to APBT. APBT has no documented history as a distinct breed before the founding of UKC in 1898. By most expert accounts, the APBT's primary progenitor was either the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, a breed specifically developed for fighting, or a cross between descendents of the many non-descript Bull and Terrier breeds that - like the Staffordshire Terriers - were usually bred for fighting and variously known as Pit Dogs, Pit Terriers, Pit Bull Terriers, American Bull Terriers, among others.

There is a full 50-year gap between the last known bull-baiting breed and APBT. On the other hand, there is ample reason to believe that blood lines chosen as the founding stock for APBT were fighting dogs. But supposing for sake of argument that principle APBT founders like Chauncey Bennett somehow managed to scrupulously select non-fighting blood lines, we know for certain that APBT was popularly used and bred as fighting dogs for over 30 years after APBT was established as a distinct breed by the UKC. The reputed success of APBT as a pit fighting breed from day one leaves no reasonable doubt as to its fighting heritage. --Brewster1971 04:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So I guess it is pure luck then that the APBT's can take down all the other breeds of dogs that were bred purely for the purpose of fighting. Or maybe there never was a dog that was bred for fighting other dogs. The reality of the situation is that APBT's were and still are to a certain extent bred for fighting. By denying this very fact, one person makesthis whole article hugely NPOV. (By the way, I like APBT's. I just don't see any reason to present them as something they are not). Delmet (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

*OBVIOUS PROBLEM*

Pit Bulls were NEVER bred for bull/bear baiting. Their ancestors were, however. Quick progression of the lineage:

Old English Bulldog - The original bull baiting dog

Bull and Terrier dog - The OEB/terrier cross which is one of the POSSIBLE decendants of the APBT/AmStaff lines

APBT/AmStaff - HOWEVER, it must be noted that there were significant differences between the ABPT and the Bull and Terrier. Physically, the bull and terrier was a bigger dog. it had to be. After baiting was banned, the dogs began to be bred down in size to make them faster, improving their ability in the fighting pits, as well as more dog agressive. This probably happened either A) Before the dogs came to the Americas or B) concurrently with the dogs coming to the Americas. Either way, the dogs have actually started to be bred up in size to make them more effective in weight pulling (or so some kennels think) as well as the machismo factor. REGARDLESS, Pit Bulls/AmStaffs were bred for the fighting pit 100%; not for bull/bear baiting. I'll be more than happy to supply references later; too drunk.

GH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.48.117 (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't claim that the American Pit Bull Terrier didn't exist until the UKC came along to register it. by that argument, the Old English Bulldog never existed because they didn't have breed registries! There is much historical evidence that bull baiting dogs came to be used as fighting dogs, and also that the old english bull dog was very similar to the modern American Pit Bull Terrier in size, appearance and temperament. There are old drawings of the bulldogs and descriptions that confirm this.

I think as well that it is more accurate to describe the pit bull as a dog with a high prey drive, than specifically dog agressive. Like many dogs, pit bulls are very driven to attack animals. This could include bulls, and also other dogs.

It is also probable that many of these dogs came to North America before the 19th century and certainly in the early 19th century. That is exactly the time period when the old English Bulldog was still around. I think in England the dog got mixed with terriers, leading to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed, but there is no evidence that this ever happened in the United States. The dogs there have always been much bigger than the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

It is true that we are seeing even larger dogs today being called pit bull terriers, but the breed standard of up to 65 pounds is certainly large enough to match the old english Bull Dog. So if its the same size as the bulldog, and looks like a bulldog and has the same ancestory as a bulldog, why isn't it a bulldog? Bryandale (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Diagram picture

That diagram picture claims to be GFDL. It looks like it's from some Vet text book. Can anyone confirm this? Looks pretty damn suspicious. Gigs 22:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I went ahead and tagged all the new images for deletion. They all have no copyright information and are likely copyright violations. Gigs 22:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Photos are Allowed to be used for public view, as all the pics are examples of the ADBA Standard. The Diagram Picture is a Photo ilustrating what a Pitbull should be to be classified as a pitbull. Its not from a book or anything like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cghiotto (talk • contribs) 18:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but assuredly someone owns the copyright on it, someone that isn't you. Can you prove that the copyright has lapsed on it, and/or it is released with a permissive license? Gigs 18:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Tagged Unreferenced

... because, well, it's unreferenced. There are lots of external links provided, so the people who provided those links (or someone who has the time to do it [I might, if I can find that time] should scrounge those links for referable material. especially the "temperment" section, which appears to be completely anecdotal and OR. // 3R1C 04:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Standardizing name usage

In this article there's a couple of different spellings and punctuations used for "pit bull."

Is it policy or precedent to keep capitalizing the breed name throughout the article, like a proper noun? If so, how would this apply when the phrase refers to the pit bull group of breeds?

Also, is Pit-Bull, Pitbull or Pit Bull proper? In the paragraphs, there's not much capitalization, but every section heading has a capital usage. Sci girl 23:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

'pit bull' is a slang term for the american pit bull terrier, which has been extended to the other bully breeds. 'pittbull, pitbull, pitt bull, etc. are incorrect and go even further into slang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.56.8 (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[Interjected] I disagree that 'pit bull' should be classified as "slang". The term you may have been looking for is 'misnomer'. Slang is almost always used in place of more formal or proper terms for the intended purpose of adding or imparting a humorous, jocular, racey, sarcastic, metaphorical, and sometimes taboo meaning or connotation. A misnomer is defined as 'a misapplied, unsuitable, or inappropriate name or designation.' --Brewster1971 01:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's convention is to capitalize the names of dog breeds (e.g., "Airedale Terrier"). But types of dogs aren't (e.g., "terrier"). I'd be inclined to capitalize Pit Bull (and, yes, it's 2 separate words). Elf | Talk 19:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Main Picture

I would like to know why the main picture was changed? I mean the old one looked pretty good and this knew is hard to be sure on whether it is or is not a pitbull.TeePee-20.7 10:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Law Dogs USA

Someone please add in the link to Diane Jessup's site lawdogsusa.org. They take rescued APBT's and train them as service dogs for law enforcement. It's non-profit and I have nothing to do with it, it's just some nice positive press for this fantastic breed and their true capabilities. It's one of those sites which really helps dispel some of the myths surrounding this breed. I tried at one point to add it in but some smug jerk named Trysha removed it claiming me to be a spammer advertising my own site. At first I thought about removing every wikipedia reference to any site I host (trust me there are hundreds) but I decided to try this tack instead. So, someone who can't be accused of nonsense by Trysha, please edit in lawdogsusa.org. Check it out, it's not a scam or spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.113.74 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That and her workingpitbull.com site. It could be argued that it is commercial since it includes her breeding kennel, but it is one of the best sites out there for information about the breed. Bryandale (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added links to LawdogsUSA.com and Diane Jessup's theworkingpitbull.com. She is one of the most knowledgeable people around when it comes to this breed of dog. Dablyputs (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Newsworthy?

"Rachel Ray, TV food personality, owns a pitbull." I find it hard to believe that this is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Unless someone can justify it, I'll remove this. Bricology 18:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Black People

'Owners of APBTs claim that well-bred APBTs are not aggressive toward humans, and suggest that the problem is due to the breed's appeal to irresponsible segments of society who do not know how to breed or train the dogs. (AKA: Black People.)'

This statement was great... until the last part. This is discriminating against a race, and is quite rude. Shouldn't it say something like drug dealers, gang members, etc. instead of being a racial remark?

APBTS are just as appealing to the wrong crowd of caucasions and asians.

I'm changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiotMonday (talk • contribs) 23:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is very discriminatory, and borderline racist in my own personal opinion. I think this comment should be removed completely. --Felix the hurricane 4:55PM 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix the Hurricane (talk • contribs) 20:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Borderline" racist? The only way this could be more racist is by using well-known racial slurs. ----DanTD 13:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that drug dealers and gang members ARE an irresponsible segment of society. -AS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.73.122 (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are irresponsible dog owners of all races just as there are irresponsible dog owners who own different breeds of dog. The consequences are just not as great when the dog is of a smaller less capable breed. There should be no reference to race whatsoever in this article and I have edited it to reflect that. Dablyputs (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Biased beyond belief

I just want to say how one sided, poorly written and presented this article is. Everyone is entitled to an opinion on Pitbulls but wikipedia is a supposedly unbiased information source. This article is obviously written entirely by pitbull lovers and as such is probably the most unhelpfull, poorly written page I've ever read on WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.60.213 (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

First, a pitbull is a mixed breed dog. The American Pit Bull Terrier is what I believe you're talking about. And how many other dog pages have people complaining about how they don't like the breed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.56.8 (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The biased information has been removed from the article I think, should we remove the template from the top page or are there any other concerns to be aware of ? Felix the Hurricane 23:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Be careful not to go on an inquisition and cleanse facts too. Sukiari 08:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that claims of bias are completely unfounded. The person making this claim points to no single specific instance of bias/misinfromation and instead offers only speculation and his personal beliefs.155.13.48.8 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, it seems that any mention of the aggressive nature and large volume of attacks by Pitbulls, Pitbull Terriers, or whatever name they changed the breed to this week to keep people confused about what a pitbull is or isn't, is immediately removed from the page. This is a poor article in its current state.Sukiari (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. A very poor and highly biased article, even if I do agree with a lot of what it says. I want to be informed, not given a rant. JFormaldehydeM (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So in your view any comments that don't reflect your prejudices are biased. Have you ever owned a pit bull? It seems to me that allegations of pit bulls as "vicious" come from people with absolutely no experience of the breed and no knowledge other than the crazed fear-mongering of the main stream press. This comes from PETA's attempts to vilify the bread as their first step of the genocide of all domesticated animals. The American Pitbull Terrier has a long history as America's dog and its favourite pet including many famous pit bulls like Petie from the Little Rascals and the RCA Victor dog. Its only since PETA got involved that we have started hearing this urban legend that they are vicious dogs. Pitbull owners are defending the greatest dog in the world. The dog that has long been considered "America's dog" and that is the greatest family pet in history. This is why we are so strident. The pitbull is too great a dog to see is destroyed by prejudice, ignorance, fear and radical animal rights ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanrd (talk • contribs) 05:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Is it your contention that it is impossible to learn about the Space Shuttle without flying in it? Is it impossible to learn about the Sun without going there? Your bias shows clearly. Sukiari (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that this article is going down the crap hole extremely quickly. The version that was here a year ago was better then the current one. This one is poorly written, and extremely biased. Delmet (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Extrememly biased, obviously written by people with strong feelings in favor of pitbulls. It's great to have people who are passionate about the topic writing about it, but to be putting things like capital emphasis saying "Pitbulls are NOT violent" is obviously in violation of the NPOV policy. If you're going to be biased, at least dress the language up a little so it's not blatant. Gregory j (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to allege bias, provide some evidence. Some facts to support your viewpoint. The fact is that every expert study, every dog expert, every trainer, every breeder, every professional veterinary association and every reputable dog organization will tell you that there is nothing wrong with the American Pit Bull Terrier. They have in fact been bred to be non-aggressive toward people, and they are in fact known for their stable temperaments and friendly nature notwithstanding the urban legends being propogated by the mass media. This is an encyclopedia and so it does deal in fact, not nonsense. If you want to trash pit bulls, send out a spam email. There are lots of sites tracking those kinds of scams. Bryandale (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The tone of the article is totally unsuitable for anything that claims to be a serious encyclopedia. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am neither positively nor negatively inclined towards pitbulls but I agree that at the very least nearly all of the statements made about APBT behavioral tendencies are unsourced. It is however not easy to find information based on some empirical evidence about pit bull behavior. Virtually all evidence that will be found are news sources which naturally report on the 'more newsworthy' stories of APBTs attacking people. Evidence in favor of APBTs should perhaps be sought in information supplied by Kennel organizations or other institutions that would support scientific studies on dog behavior. In the meanwhile, before such evidence is found, a minimalistic approach should be adopted in my opinion. To be of some help towards that I am able to distill some facts that need more reference, but seem to be very believable(true) anyway

• The APBT was at one time bred for fighting, or at least it's ancestors where.
• There have been many cases of APBTs attacking humans
• APBT tend not to be aggressive towards humans in particular, but more towards other dogs and other animals.
• There are however, also countless examples of good-natured APBTs that are friendly to humans as well as other dogs.
• News reports on APBTs tend to be negatively inclined as the negative news about the breed is inherently either more newsworthy 'dog injures child vs dog plays with child' or more frequently occuring 'dog injures man vs dog saves man from drowning'.
• Whether the dog isn't naturally more aggressive is at least up to some dispute until reliable sources are found.
• What can be stated is that the dog can be trained to be non-aggressive, evidenced by the fact that there are many non-aggressive APBTs. Again, no unsourced statements should be made on how hard this is.

I would leave out any comment about social responsibility of any owners, unless you have very reliable sources with very solid evidence to support your claims. Amsterdam 0:53, 25 january 2008 (GMT +1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.41.184.168 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the article to be more accurate, reference reputable breed standards and temperment testing organizations and removed most of what appeared to be opinion. I would really like to see the dispute about his article ended. Although I own a pit bull and could be described as a pit bull fanatic, I have no interest other than seeing this article reflect the truth about this particular breed of dog. I am happy to address any uncited facts, issues of conjecture or opinion. I did not base my updates to this article on my experience or opinion about the dog. Dablyputs (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture of the blue-nosed APBT

Blue-nosed pit bulls are highly unreliable, as most tend to occur in the apbts that are crossbred with bulldogs, creating the 'blue pit bull' or 'bully'. Where's the picture that was there first? It was much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.56.8 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source on this? I own a blue-nosed, blue marking APBT. From what I was told by the veterinarian, it is caused by a gene abnormality from dilution of a black gene. The abnormality also causes skin problems, skin allergies, and baldness in these dogs. --Skipping squirrel (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Is PITBULLSONTHEWEB.COM a reliable source?

I have been reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources and am very concerned about this article; the vast majority of it is not sourced, and the rest attributes a website called "pitbullsontheweb.com". How reliable is that website, really, and why should an encyclopedia be using it as a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxX mossbreaker XxX (talk • contribs) 20:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a pro-pit site. I wouldn't cite it, at least not without a disclaimer about whose opinion it is. Gigs (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)