Talk:American Staffordshire Terrier/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

Content placed onto this page was a likely copyright violation, copied verbatim from [1] and [2].

See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information on why it was removed. If you are the author of some of the material, comment here on why it should be restored to this page.

Incorrect Info On Am-Staff's

Information in this section should either be used to replace previous information, or it should be removed to the discussion page. It's inappropriate to create a new paragraph simply to contradict what's previously been written in the article.

APBT and AST

I have edited the american staffordshire terrier here on wikipedia because a lot of historic facts were denied or falsified, for example that the APBT is a fighting bred offspring of the AmStaff, because people found out that AmStaffs have fighting abilities. the opposite is the case, the AmStaff may be a offspring of fighting dogs and may still have rests fighting dog heritage and there are few fighting bred AmStaffs, but overall it is a showbred and compagnion bred dog only. Sending to pit for example the dog on the first pic, would be fatal for the dog if the opposite is a game bred pit, because they are small, extremely agile not half as stocky as the shown dog. Please don't think that i am a fighting enthusiast, but: you can't deny history. fighting is the history and this must always be minded,to understand where these dogs came from, and it would be even dangerous to deny it, because this explains the extreme hunger of these dogs for exercise. a breed that is able to fight for more than 3 hours, needs proper exercise for body and brain, otheriwse they will destroy your home and may get dangerous. A American Stafford may not be as keen on exercise as a chinaman line gamebred APBT but still there is a heritage of these dogs, and they need exercise for example fly ball or agility or exen drug or bomb detection. Especially for this they are more suitable than for example the GSD, because they were bred to not give up and to show no mercy in pit, and the same they do in this job! How cruel fighting biz is, especially the AKC, keeps its traps shut about a FACT: Real fighting pits were never bred to attack humans, not in America not in the olde home britain. the dogs were bred dor fighting against other dogs only, aatacking humans was not in the breeders at all and is not today, in old england in the worker slums the dogs were used to live with the family, the wounds beeing aided by the whole family after combat, including the children, and the pit men stay in the pit with their dogs during the fight. The fact that the UKC and the ADBA still register AST as APBT was no were to read. There were no information about the apbt beeing registered as AmStaff because it has become a national icon after ww1, and no notice that these were for example colby dogs, and that exactly these dogs are still used to bred gamebred Pits nonsense like that pit bulls are always vicious to other dogs, my dog Jess a real fighting line pit , made her life great with other dogs, was really playful, you could only see her fighting dog ancestry when she was attacked by other dogs, for example my parents bernese mountain dog, in the way she fought back! Its all a question of proper handling and socialisation!

My family is a old family of german dog men, my gradfather was a dog handler in the Waffen-SS in WW2 (not very glorious but thats a different thing), he handled GSDs, and was a passionated dogman, and after ww2 he still bred the type of GSD he was used to handle in service, breeding them for Schutzhund and as wokingdogs for police and shepherds only (if you would have told him that you want the dog as a pet only he wouldn't have handed a pup to you), while others started to riun the gsd in show, for example breeding the gsd with almost diagonal backs, the hips almost lying on the ground, he bred for exercise, while others had dogs with hip dysplasia he never had a single hip sick dog, also because he had no problems with making an outcross with Malinois and Altdeutscher Hütehund, the non FCI indigious german herder, using east german gsds only. But many couldn't understand his way of breeding his dogs, and today you will have problems to find the old type of gsd, not even in the east.

I myself am a passionated dog man of the apbt, my last dog Jessy was a chinaman dog, and i dod several tests with her and asts and no dog of the ast breed could be compared with her in fitness, in exercise. While she was able to make 40 km running right beside the bike , most ast began to have problems after 20 kms. I was quite done, and was thinking of a pause, while my dog was not thinking about a pause!

At least something to the socialisation and temperament: No dog is born mean, its all of proper handling and socialisation! A AST and a Pit may not be handled by dog noobs, its a breed that should be reserved to dog veterans and people who know exactly what their doing! Only these people know how do! Example: Do you think a noob in aviation, who has learned how to fly a cessna should be put into a cockpit of a F-16 fighting jet, and get ready for take off?! no, because he could never handle the plane proper, and if he would get of the ground, in the end he would for sure risk his live and maybe the others lives! The APBT is the F-16 of dogs, while poodles are the bi-plane among dogs.

APBT and AST are mercyless in Combat, the so called lock yaw phenomene, the dogs don't really lock their yaws, they just don't wanna let go, that's the point! if you as the handler don't know what to do the other dog is sorry for saying it like this: FUCKED UP! Especially the videos and images of rappers and other cribs handlind pit bulls through the media, leave a impressions in the society, among the scum and among the main society. If now a little mobster of even just a wankster or suburbia-pseudo-gang$ta gets a pit or a staff, the problems are almost for sure to come! this is the reason for bsl.

I live in Germany, and since 2000 AmStaffs are banned by federal laws, and by state law in almost every state of germany. the reasons were irresponsible handlers, for example the guys from hamburg, who caused the death of a child because of giving their dogs amphetamines. they have been known to the police of the hamburg state as violent and criminal. The media, especially the firesetters of the newspaper "Bild" started a campaing of of hate against these dogs, telling trash like that the pit bull has a bite power of 1000 kg, and loads of other bullshit. the consequence was the ban... since then we, the handlers are condemmned to keep our dogs in illegality in some states and in others to live with beeing terrorized by the governent and having to pay taxes up to a few hundred Euros per year! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perroalano (talk • contribs) 13:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the guy above got wikipedia and blogspot mixed up.

Nonsensical Text

Removed the following sentence from the section "Similarities to other Bull Terriers".

"Amstaffs are very nice dogs taught are only mean if they dont know what is wrong and what is right. That is just what some are told to do."

I'm sure the author had the best interests of the breed in mind when they inserted this text, but... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.69.154 (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Reinstated edits

Some of my edits have been reverted. I've reinstated them - please see below for my reasoning:

• "It's said that he was "The greatest fighting dog that ever lived" - this isn't am appropriate caption for Wikipedia. Said by whom? Even if you can cite who said this, it's just that person's opinion, and is not an encyclopedic fact.

• "This dog wants nothing more than to please its master." Well, that's blatantly an opinion. It's not an encyclopedic fact that this breed ants nothing more than to please its master. Has a scientific study ever ranked everything that every American Staffordshire Terrier wants, and ranked this top? If you can demonstrate using a reliable citation that this breed wants nothing more than to please its master, then please provide a citation.

• "His courage is proverbial." If you believe that it's a verifiable, encyclopedic fact that the American Staffordshire Terrier's courage is proverbial, please provide a citation.

• "Training requirement: Consistent with an energetic dog of intelligence... more is likely better but poorly done will only insure disastrous results." As explained in my edit summary, this is a copyright violation from http://www.digitaldog.com/dog_breed/American+Staffordshire+Terrier - please don't reinsert copyright violations.

Thanks, 86.167.81.92 (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Please restore what you deleted:

• 1. "His courage is proverbial" Read the FCI(Fédération Cynologique Internationale) standard, group3, sec.3 [[3]] or Staffordshire Terrier Club of America - Official Amstaff Standard [4]

• 2. "It's said that he was "The greatest fighting dog that ever lived" The American Pit Bull Terrier (History of Fighting Dogs Series) By Joseph L. Colby. [5] This dog was unbeaten and won every championship in the 1890's.

• 3. "This dog wants nothing more than to please its master" [6] or [7]

or [8]

• 4. "Training requirement" Since you are from the UK, you have a better English than me. So you can rewrite this section:Training requirement, and you can cite the "digital dog" site as a source.

Thanks !k84m97 (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In each instance, the text you are seeking to restore is problematic. Item 1 (which is unsupported by your first link) involves "peacock" language and is unencyclopedic. Item 2 might work if rewritten to specify who said it—assuming the speaker is notable—but it's unacceptably vague and sounds like mere puffery in its current form. Depending on how you read it, the ambiguously worded Item 3 either could be said about any dog breed or isn't literally true for any breed. Item 4 sounds suspiciously like how-to advice, which Wikipedia doesn't provide in its articles. IP 86.167.81.92's edit appears to have been reasonable and appropriate. Rivertorch (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

1. It's supported by my link but it's a world file, as I said, choose group 3, section 3 http://www.fci.be/nomenclature.aspx It's not problematic, it's said by the World Canine Organization (FCI). 2. It was said by the man who is the father of the breed. In every AST or APBT lineage you will find Colby's dog. Read the book. 3.Working breeds have their characteristics and not every breed want to "to please its master". (See the English Bulldog). Anyway, I posted references for this statement. Thanks. k84m97 (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. Please understand that my objective here has nothing to do with American Staffordshire Terriers; it is simply to uphold standards for Wikipedia articles. In any case, I have left a message at WikiProject_Dogs to solicit further input. That doesn't seem to be a very active project, but we shall see. Rivertorch (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! k84m97 (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've tried engaging with k84m97 to explain why uncyclopedic opinions such as "This dog wants nothing more than to please its master", "His courage is proverbial" and "It's said that he was the greatest fighting dog that ever lived" can't be included in a Wikipedia article, even if they are quoted on other websites. However, this user keeps blanking everything on his or her user page (including, I note, repeated warnings to stop posting copyrighted text), so it's just impossible... 86.167.81.92 (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Just easy. On this page (and I let you know on your talk page) I posted my sources. I think that the World Canine Organization (FCI) statement is encyclopedic. The last two statements are well documented. It is said by an official organization. Why are you hiding? I guess you have an account. Please explain to us why are not encyclopedic "His courage is proverbial" and "It's said that he was the greatest fighting dog that ever lived" since the first is from the FCI standard and the second statement was made by an expert and is explained in his book. PS: all those warnings were given by a single user who has problems with everyone and reverts edits to his version. He acts like you and is active when you are. So are you HelloAnnyong?k84m97 (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

To IP 86.167.81.92: Just as users are allowed to edit without creating an account, as you're doing, users are allowed to blank their own talk pages if they want. Both practices are less than optimal, in my opinion, but they're accepted. (A user's talkpage history remains for anyone to see, of course. In this case, I already looked at K84m97's yesterday). It strikes me as a positive thing that K84m97 is engaging here in discussion about this content question.
To K84m97: Article talk pages are not the best place to raise questions of sockpuppetry. If you believe there's been a policy violation in that regard, take it to WP:SPI.
To both of you: If no one from WikiProject Dogs shows up today, I'll file an RFC and get more eyes on this. In the meantime, please...let's try to focus on content and nothing else on this page, okay? Rivertorch (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

OK! Thanks. Hope that more people will be involved.k84m97 (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright problems

I've removed sections of the article that are probable copyright violations. The text of the "Characteristics" section can be found here, and large parts of "Personality behavior and training" here. This issue has been alluded to a couple of times in discussions above, but I think it deserves its own section, as it supersedes the issue raised in the RfC immediately above. Please do not reinsert this text until/unless its copyright status can be determined; once that occurs we can move on to resolving the content issues internal to the text I've removed. — æk^Talk 06:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. I didn't examine the article thoroughly enough in the first place—was just bothered by the wording and ended up trying to mediate things a little. Rivertorch (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As I know the breed standard is not a copyrighted material. It was elaborated in 1936 and it's the same everywhere. It is the standard of the breed.k84m97 (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I sent an e-mail to the AKC and asked for permission. We will see what will be their answer.k84m97 (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission closely. Rivertorch (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I got permission from Digital dogs and the FCI to restore the deleted content in the article. I submitted their answer to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. When I will get their answer I will restore the article.k84m97 (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is the proposed text (discussed in the previous section) appropriate for this article?

Resolved

Following the failure to arrive at a clear consensus in the above section, I am requesting comment. The disputed text is can be seen in this diff. Does the red text in the diff conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and is it appropriate for the article? Rivertorch (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate - Per WP:PEACOCK. When such opinions or commentaries are truly notable, they should be attributed and sourced. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not appropriate, they all need sources. Gerardw (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not appropriate: Unsourced opinion. jheiv (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[WP:PEACOCK] terms like greatest, extraordinary vitality shouldn't be included unless there is a reliable source. filceolaire (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not appropriate, for the following reasons:

"It's said" -> Weasel words, "The greatest fighting dog that ever lived" -> peacock terms, "His courage is proverbial" -> An unsourced opinion (wp:POV violation), "This dog wants nothing more than to please its master" -> Essentially this statement claims that all American Staffordshire Terriers want nothing more than to please their masters. Technically a very large unverified claim, although common sense tells me that it's an unencyclopedic, unverifiable, biased opinion, and it should be removed anyway. You're completely in the right to remove those statements.--Stinging Swarm ^talk 06:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The RFC has been open for two weeks now, and consensus is clear that the text in question is inappropriate. Thanks to all who participated. I'll give it another day another day or two and then, if there are no objections, close the RFC. Rivertorch (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Rivertorch (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Major full article edit

Today's full-article edit was done with an eye to diction, syntax, and encyclopedic character; material that was cut-and-pasted from other pages was reworded or removed; material directly dependent on uncredible sources was removed along with the associated reference; parts were re-written so as not to appear as a guide or position advocacyMavigogun (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Unbalanced

This article seems to come from the perspective of someone trying to minimize the position of people who feel this breed is dangerous. The temperament section does not mention that the dog has a reputation for being aggressive and hostile, and the laws section seems to be designed to prove that it is not. I personally have no opinion on the matter, but when reading this I did not feel like I was getting balanced information. (Drn8 (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

This section was discussed and resolved. See above. All the info about the breed's temperament are from official sources. Johann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.239.90 (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You should notice that the ATTS itself does not discuss summaries by breed. There is a very easily understood reason why the ATTS stats should not be included as they are. The test is voluntary, it is not free, and no thought was given to sampling design. This test's proper purpose is to evaluate a single dog that is before them. People with dogs of questionable temperament are less likely to bring in an animal to pay to have their thoughts confirmed in public. Therefore, the estimates of all breed temperament will be biased high. Further, if each breed owner group has a similar relationship between dog temperament and probability of taking part in the test, then summary results by breed will be less than dispersed than in reality and rankings (which is the key point made about the data at the wiki) will be unreliable. Here is a real world example. Pick a human trait that is a touchy subject, let's say athletic ability in men. If you advertised a vertical jump evaluation, would it be appropriate to use data from two neighboring counties to surmise something about the difference between jump height for all men in each county? Lastly, the pit bull community has latched onto this test and people with dogs that will pass are encouraged to take their dog in. You can see this in the comments on popular pit bull forums. So, the results are also being gamed. ~~WVguy8258

This issue was discussed over and over (see above at Temperament). References provided in the article come from the American Temperament Society, The American Veterinary Medical Association, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, The Centers for Disease Control, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association and the SPCA. If nobody will have objections (based on veritable sources)I will remove the "unbalanced" templates.k84m97 (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The issues regarding the ATTS test and how breed summaries are inappropriate was not addressed by anyone but you, K8. And you did it in a way that did not address or even seem to realize the point. I personally do not think you want to understand what self-selection bias is. It sounds like a big fancy schmancy word so it can't possibly be applicable down here in the trenches of the real world, right (especially when it conflicts with your own biases)? Wrong. As far as the breed summaries being from the ATTS site, having American in the name should not lend credibility to the way the data is handled by an org.

Pit bull

So I take it this isn't a pit bull? Maybe someone who knows the breed differences a little better should provide a link under "See Also" to the page for pit bulls, as I believe a lot of people are going to come to this page and wonder why there's no mention of them.Lime in the Coconut 18:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually until 1936 they were the same breed. From 1936 a group of pit bull owners started to register their dogs with the AKC under the name of Staffordshire Terrier and their function became showing and not fighting. Other pit bull owners registered their dogs with UKC and ADBA under the name of American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT). However even today you can register an AKC American Staffordshire Terrier with the UKC too, under the name of American Pit Bull Terrier. Vice-versa it's not possible, you can't register an UKC American Pit Bull Terrier with the AKC (American Kennel Club).k84m97 (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying it is merely a matter of chronological ordering? So, a dog can be both an APBT with the UKC and a AST with the AKC, but you need to do it with the AKC first? People for a long time have known that these two are basically the same breed,and this only confirms it. All the breeds commonly called pit bulls are regularly interbreed and there is no real distinction. The American Bulldog can be thrown in there as it is merely a larger strain within the pit bull breed group. Wvguy8258 (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

ATTS WP:30 Dispute

Hi,

I'll be the WP:30 for the post on the American Temperament Testing Society dispute.

I've looked at the reference and the correlating text. What I see is that the reference points to http://www.dogsincanada.com/american-staffordshire-terrier-fact-or-fallacy

The corresponding text on the wiki article is very closely paraphrased to the text on the reference:

Wiki:

measures different aspects of temperament such as aggressiveness, friendliness, stability, as well as the dog’s protectiveness toward its owner. Results as of December 2005 show that Amstaffs scores above many popular breed:Golden Retriever – 83.7%; American Staffordshire Terrier – 83.3%; Beagle – 79.7%.

Article:

measures different aspects of temperament, such as stability, shyness, aggressiveness and friendliness, as well as the dog’s instinct for protectiveness toward its handler and/or self-preservation in the face of a threat. ATTS temperament scores as of December 2005 show: Golden Retriever – 83.7%; American Staffordshire Terrier – 83.3%; Beagle – 79.7%. These results clearly show the Amstaff to be of sound temperament.

The writer of the link is Diane Duffy, but the web link article was "Originally published as a Breedlines column in the September 2006 issue of Dogs in Canada".

If you want the ATTS test results included on this wiki article, you should not use a reference from a secondary source.Curb Chain (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)k84m97 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please take this into account, and I'm waiting for your reply: ATTS mentioned in a scientific research: Scot E. Dowd Ph.D.:Assessment of Canine Temperament in Relation to Breed Groups, Matrix Canine Research Institute, 2006. The site just host the research. It's a scientific research Assessment of Canine Temperament in Relation to Breed Groups, Scot E. Dowd Ph.D. Matrix Canine Research Institute, 2006 -ATTS results directly from the American Temperament Test Society website ATTS Breed Statisticsk84m97 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Those are appropriate references. Remember to attribute these statistics when writing the prose for inclusion into the wiki article.Curb Chain (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you help me formulate this? I guess your English is better than mine. Thank you.k84m97 (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I've included the ref for you. You may want to copyedit.Curb Chain (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Curb Chain. There is currently a discussion open at the DRN - we would value your input there, too. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Chain, the research outfit is here: http://www.canineresearch.net/ that published the .pdf. Please flip through it. It is quite obviously not a serious scientific organization. If this qualifies, can't I just write up a .pdf, publish it from where I work, and then counter their claims? Is this really how things work? If this cheesy site looking for donations from paypal were making claims about polio, would they be allowed along side the Salk Institute? I admit that I am biased toward removing the ATTS stats, as I see their inherent weakness as used. I like to think though I still have my basic judgement mechanism in place. The basic "sniff" test leads me to find the http://www.canineresearch.net/ to be a joke. Wvguy8258 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

More on http://www.canineresearch.net/. You can view some company stats of the company at "corporation wiki" website (I can't paste the link because it is black listed here). It seems to be a 3 person gig (Dowd, his wife, one other). Wvguy8258 (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, google Scot E. Dowd the president of it. You will find that he is trained in microbiology and all this academic work is unrelated to dog temperament or dogs in general. It seems he has a nonprofit corporation that he, his wife, and one other person run. He asks for donations from the pit bull community in exchange for lending a scientific patina to a few articles against breed-specific legislatin. Wvguy8258 (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If the ATTS stats stay in, which I hope they don't, one thing that would help is to word it so it is clear that the ATTS tested X number of dogs BROUGHT IN BY THEIR OWNERS FOR TESTING. The way it is worded now and before it seems that the ATTS went out intentionally collecting a sample to test specifically to evaluate temperament by breed. This isn't the case. Wvguy8258 (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Scot E. Dowd also runs Pit Bull University. He is a breed advocate in a lab coat. http://www.ukcpitbull.com/edu2/ http://www.ukcpitbull.com/edu2/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=2 As a test, google Scot Dowd pit bull and also scot dowd breeder and see how many hits you get related to Dowd's love of the breed. Wvguy8258 (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources do not look self published. I think they are appropriate for inclusion.Actually, I haven't looked at the source closely enough. If they really are selfpublished, then please WP:BE BOLD and remove it.Curb Chain (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The source attributed to Scot Dowd is most certainly self-published. It is linked to the website he runs for the company he is the president of. It is not published in any journals. Perhaps a few other websites have linked to it. What is the criteria for being published? Simply having it on your website and then having another person copy it? According to you then, this should be removed. As you can see, k84m97 and I have been in an edit dispute. So, it is not wise for me to edit anything as he will just revert it because it will be seen as stepping out of the dispute resolution process. Wvguy8258 (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can prove that the sources is not reliable, this is good enough for the information and ref to be removed. I would support you in this.

Incase certain parties do not know, a peer reviewed journal is a reliable source, not any journal.Curb Chain (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we do not include information that is true, only what is published. If there is a problem with how I wrote the paragraph, please feel free to rewrite for improvement.Curb Chain (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

And I suppose that includes .pdfs written by fly by night advocacy orgs that ask for donations. So, when it comes to wikipedia, the rule for someone to get to their opinion out about something is write early, write often, and it is okay to lie in the most transparent way possible because no human at wikipedia is supposed to be able to tell. And if no one else cares to much about your lies, outside of the wiki community, it may be immortalized and become received truth to all school kids who think wikipedia is the final word on a subject. Good to know. Wvguy8258 (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I am no trying to take sides here.

• We know Assessment of Canine Temperament in Relation to Breed Groups, Scot E. Dowd Ph.D. Matrix Canine Research Institute, 2006 is not reliable source because it is self published.
• The only other source that can back the information in question is ATTS Breed Statistics. Can it be proven that this link is directly pulled from Assessment of Canine Temperament in Relation to Breed Groups, Scot E. Dowd Ph.D. Matrix Canine Research Institute, 2006? If you can prove this, then it too fails WP:RS and all the information can be pulled from the articleCurb Chain (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just a bit frustrated at negotiating wiki rules in the face of what seems obvious. I know the rules are to protect the best interests of all,however. This ATTS Breed Statistics is a primary source. It is the breed averages calculated by the ATTS, Inc. which put on the test and collect the raw data. I thought it was determined earlier that this was not appropriate as it is a primary source and is also self-published as it is simply on the ATTS website. Wvguy8258 (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Just found this, it seems the author, Scot E. Dowd, is also a pit bull breeder: http://www.apbt.info/tiki-pagehistory.php?page=Dr%20Matrix&source=0 Wvguy8258 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, by all means, if this is not reliable, then the information can not be substantiated. The case here that is all that we are determining, is if what youyour claims are true. For example, I've been to ATTS Breed Statistics many times but cannot find where it says how they procured the information. For example, Was it ATTS who commissioned the results or did ATTS just copy those results from Scot Dowd and not mention?Curb Chain (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now I get your question. The ATTS is the organization that puts on the tests of dogs. They also, on their website, summarizes their raw numbers. Dowd and others take those numbers and report them to make some case. Dowd is self published and ATTS is a primary source. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so that establishes that they are both primary sources, and could possibly cook the books. Most importantly, they are not reliable secondary sources, so they should not be included in the article.Curb Chain (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that ATTS can't be used directly because its a primary source. Otherwise it's a veritable organization. For example in LA County you can own intact restricted breeds if they pass the ATTS's tests. However I found its results analyzed in various books published by prestigious publishers. I'm still reading them in the library. When I'm done I'll let you know. Regards.k84m97 (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

k84m97, you knew as much about the ATTS at the beginning of this dispute as you do now. Right? Therefore, how can you suddenly have this realization that you were wrong and not have at least me scratching my head? Now you are off to find sources for this ATTS org that you have this love for, after proving you cannot judge sources in spite of your biases, and so another round then is coming. To put a finer point on this, the logical argument from my end was NEVER about the validity of the ATTS for individual dogs (although I think what it means is often highly overstated). It was about if summaries of the sample that ATTS has at hand says something meaningful about the population of interest (the entire breed). There are so many books about pit bulls written by dog people without a single mathematically- or logically-inclined brain cell but a basket'o'love for the pitties, that I'm sure you'll find book after book mentioning these stats. You are likely planning to tire us down in that way. Lastly, you jump the shark and assert that an organization is "veritable" because LA County uses its test. Well, I'm quite sure LA County is wrong about a large number of things, why is this not one of them? Remember who holds the burden of proof. Wvguy8258 (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:30 vs. WP:DRN

I have no idea what went on. This has become extremely confusing for me.

I came here for a WP:30 but now I realize there was a WP:DRN filed as well? Having 2 different disputes makes it very hard for 3rd parties to help mediate. Please use only WP:30 as a first venue.Curb Chain (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my first disputation. Wvguy8258 (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Curb Chain. I think the dispute was posted at WP:DRN before a WP:3O request was made. There is now discourse happening on this page, so I have closed the discussion at DRN. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm the Mediator from the DRN discussion (I also happen to be a Third Opinion Wikipedian, for what it's worth). I'm sorry I haven't weighed in earlier but I was offline for the weekend.

• I agree with Curb Chain that neither of the proffered sources (Dogs of Canada or Dowd) can be used in the article to bring in the ATTS data as neither of them is a reliable source for evaluation of that data. Even if you accept, for sake of argument, that Dogs of Canada is itself a reliable source in general (which is itself debatable) it is obviously an uncritical reportage of the ATTS data, which is not the kind of secondary reliable source needed for scientific data. The Dowd article is self-published in the form currently cited and unless it has been published or evaluated in an high-quality (e.g. peer-reviewed scientific journal or something similar) secondary reliable source which has not been yet identified, it is not usable for the same reason: it has not been published in a high-quality reliable source.
• Though no one has quite said it yet, some folks seem to be about to make this argument: "What's talking about all these Wikipedia rules about? If it's true it belongs in Wikipedia! The public has a right to know!" Though I pointed it out in my comments at DRN, it's worth repeating here that the verifiability policy says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." One of the results of that policy is that there are some things which the public, or parts of the public, think are important or even urgent which simply cannot be included in Wikipedia because they have not been reported in a way which Wikipedia will accept. Though some people do not like that standard, it's simply the way that it is here. For a more detailed explanation, especially if you are a newer editor here, please see my Advice to New Users essay and be sure to also click on the link to "Wikipedia, Bicycles, and Wagons" towards the end of that essay.
• If additional dispute resolution is needed on this matter (though I hope that it will not), it ought to go to the Mediation Cabal or to the Mediation Committee.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC) (Added third bullet point. — 14:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC) TransporterMan (TALK))

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "American Staffordshire Terrier". Thank you. --Wvguy8258 (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Why self-selection bias disallows accurate comparison of ATTS test summaries by breed

A test given by a dog fancier group whose goal is to evaluate individual dogs cannot be summarized and used to compare breeds. This is because the samples from each breed are not likely to be random or representative of each breed. In fact, the owners of American Staffies and other close breeds discuss actively gaming these breed stats in order to raise their breeds ranking. This is done because their breed of choice is controversial. Poodle owners do not have the same motivation to clean up the name of poodles. Comparing these breed summaries is like attempting to compute the difference in average income of the residents of 2 states based upon the average income of people in each state that buy a car from a Mercedes Benz dealership in the state. The dog advocates and others that use these stats can't or won't see this because the ATTS test is one of their linch pin arguments.

Here is why it should be pulled: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvguy8258 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you also have a problem with OFA stats since those are also based on information submitted voluntarily and there is actual evidence that people are less likely to submit bad results.[9] The same sampling problem also applies to info from breed club surveys, but we also use those in our breed articles. --Dodo bird (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Those are problematic as well, especially if you do not mention the sampling frame, potential biases, and how it can influence results. Is it any wonder that dog breed fanciers doing statistical analysis without help would make many mistakes? The worst cases of self-selection bias is like this case, where the variable of interest (dog temperament) has a direct influence on the likelihood of a dog being included. Your orthopedics stats do not have this quality nearly to this degree, I would think, because there is not an entire wing of people wanting to rehabilitate the public view of the orthopedics of a certain dog breed. Most samples have bias. For instance, calling people in the middle of the day to ask what deodorant they use for marketing purposes does not get a random sample of the general population as it excludes many people at work. However, demographic information is usually collected (age, gender, work status, etc) in order to correct for this bias. Further, the bias to be corrected is less serious because being home during the day is unlikely to have a large impact on brand choice (the response and probability of being in the sample are not clearly tied). This is not the case with the temperament society test in question. It is like people that like brand X of deodorant being less likely to answer any phone calls (which is unlikely as you can see). Further, if you visit pit bull forums, they actively game the test and tell people not to take their dog if it will fail. This sends the bias into overdrive. Further, the president of the ATTS states in an interview that only a few dogs flunk due to aggression, and most flunk due to timidity. The ATTS test was devised originally to gauge fitness for schutzhund. Wvguy8258 (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

However "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is VERIFIABILITY, not truth" or what some perceive as truth.92.82.24.232 (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've acquiesced that folks like you will find enough people who are untrustworthy sources on this statistical analysis that got a few claims on it into. Wvguy8258 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Comparing two breeds via potentially biased samples.

Numbers 1 and 2 indicate the breed the variable corresponds to throughout.

N1=total number of breed 1 in general pop. P1=proportion of breed 1 in gen. pop. that would pass ATTS F1=(1-P1)=prop of breed 1 in gen.pop. that would fail ATTS

N2, P2, and F2 are same as above BUT for breed 2

SPP=sampling proportion among passes (%/100 of either breed among gen. pop. of those that will pass that are tested).

SPF=same as above BUT sampling proportion for those that will fail

We'll also make the reasonable assumption that SPP > SPF (meaning dogs that will pass are more likely to be tested, this is to show you what happens when that very reasonable idea is true)

I assume SPP and SPF are the same for breeds 1 and 2, but might not be if one set of breed owners are more image conscious (wanna game the test etc). That would make the effect I will show you even WORSE, but constant values will work.

The parameter we would like to estimate from our sample is just P1/P2 (relative proportion of passes for the 2 breeds). BUT what we will observe, if we use the variables above as a sample generating mechanism, is:

[N1*P1*SPP/(N1*P1*SPP+N1*F1*SPF)]/[N2*P2*SPP/(N2*P2*SPP+N2*F2*SPF)]

the above reduces to

P1/P2 * [P2*(SPP-SPF)+SPF]/[P1*(SPP-SPF)+SPF]

The simple fraction to the left is what we would like to know, the fraction to the right (bigger expression) is the bias. You should notice that the location in the denominator and numerator for the pass rates by breed are inverted. Let's assume that P1/P2 < 1. So long as SPP is greater than SPF, then as P1 grows smaller (because it is in the denominator in the biasing expression) the biasing fraction to the right grows larger and will inflate the ratio observed in the sample above that which would be observable with exhaustive sampling.

The work from above seems to be interesting. Since it looks like a study and to avoid to consider a self-published work may I ask if it published in a scientific journal or in a book by a prestigious publisher ?89.123.208.58 (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm a trained data analyst. I sat down on my porch with a pen and a cup of coffee. Google my username to see my activities in various computer programming, science, and statistical analysis forums. I am simply pointing out why self-selection bias will have an impact here. I do not want this included necessarily, it is for your benefit. I can pick up any introductory sampling design book and have similar information in 2 minutes to you. Just google self-selection bias. I modified the basic concepts to fit this specific example.Wvguy8258 (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Therefore is a self published research and according to Wikipedia rules it cannot be included or taken into account92.82.24.232 (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I stated it was for your benefit and others (basically to show you why you and the lawyer are wrong), and that I didn't want it published. Further, you can surely take anything into account here. Do the basic laws of logic lie to rule of identity apply in our conversations? Yes, of course, we are taking things like that into account. Do we need to reference them here? Are we actually being totally clear in regards to what we are taking into account ever? Wvguy8258 (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of this? Sampling bias is not that difficult a concept to grasp.--Dodo bird (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It is if, as you admit, you use biased samples. You mentioned you did for OFA, did you know it was likely biased? Wvguy8258 (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It might be difficult to realize why breed groups cannot be compared here. It was for another wikipedian at least. Simple sampling bias is different than self-selection bias. Further, I am pointing out that the bias likely in the ATTS test stat sample generation process is likely to narrow the gap between breeds so that rank ordering, etc among breeds is virtually meaningless. Wvguy8258 (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

But the aim of Wikipedia is not to publish information perceived as "truth" by some, instead it is verifiability of the information included, by a reliable source, a respected publisher. You are arguing against the inclusion of the ATTS with your own work which was published by yourself (copy/paste) on the article's talkpage. Your work isn't reliable nor was it published therefore it can't be used.92.82.24.232 (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it can be verified that some people have gotten books published citing data summaries by the ATTS. You win that. I think you'll see that I put this on the talk page not in the article, and that I expressly targeted this at you so that although you will get the ATTS test on the page, you and others might understand why it is an unreliable data source nonetheless. I've stated that several times. I would have posted the above to your talk page instead, but you are doing your edits while not logged into one. Wvguy8258 (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting quote from the ATTS at http://atts.org/breed-statistics/ "ATTS Breed Statistics as of February 19, 2012

The pass-fail rate is not a measure of a breed’s aggression, but rather of each dog’s ability to interact with humans, human situations, and the environment. See a description of the test on the TT Test Description page."

Wvguy8258 (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

My aim is not to win a "debate", my aim is to edit Wiki articles while I respect Wiki rules. You can't quote info directly from the ATTS site since it is a research, you need to use it from a peer reviewed scientific journal or a work published by a respectable publisher. Furthermore you are making edits with your username and also with your ip 76.93.78.89 Double standard ?89.123.229.29 (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's called not being logged in sometimes when I think that I am. I am not attempting to hide anything. Wvguy8258 (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

no additions allowed to temperament section if they do not line up with 92.82.24.232's point of view

see title — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvguy8258 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

ATTS test statistics were added again, and were deleted

The appropriateness of including ATTS test statistics was covered extensively last fall. Someone added it again, but must not have familiarized themselves with the talk page and dispute over this. A moderated dispute found that ATTS test stats are not appropriate here.Wvguy8258 (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is the ATTS info held to the standard for scientific sources rather than just for general sources?--116.15.118.121 (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you making a scientific claim by presenting these statistics? I'd say so. Wvguy8258 (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Please Wvguy8258 do not try to mislead the public. Just above was stated that the ATTS can be included if a reliable secondary source is found. This source is from a work published by the American Bar Association, therefore it can be included. The American Bar Association was founded in 1878 in the USA whose main activities are "the setting of academic standards for law schools, and the formulation of model ethical codes related to the legal profession" furthermore it "provides law school accreditation, continuing legal education, information about the law, programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work, and initiatives to improve the legal system for the public." I do think this source can be accepted as reliable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.208.58 (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Please sign your statements. A quasi-dog advocacy group puts on a test and summarizes the results, a law professor copies it in a book she has written that was published by the Bar. I say it is misleading or unreliable because the stats make a scientific or statistical claim and are not reviewed by scientists or statisticians. Would you be adverse to adding statements indicating that the sampling frame for the ATTS statistics is those people within any breed ownership group that seek out the test or volunteer for it and then pay money to have it administered? I don't think you get that a random lawyer that got their book published by the bar or dog advocacy groups are not usually in any position to judge statistical information.Wvguy8258 (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I see you are modifying your earlier posts here. No, the law professor extensively analyzing the issue, prezenting the case as it is presented and accepted in court rulings, (in LA county you can keep a dangerous dog if it passed the ATTS test's) furthermore the work is published by the American Bar Association which is a reputable and serious publisher89.123.229.29 (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Dispute has been posted.Wvguy8258 (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

outside editor request for temperament section

My hand was forced. Anonymous user even removed a direct quote from the book he/she references from a section connected to their material they include. Good faith cannot be assumed when a paragraph by the original author cannot be completed without removal by the person that included the first part of the paragraph to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvguy8258 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Original research is not allowed in wiki just if it comes from a reliable secondary source. Your other reference was about the pitbulls however this is the Staffordshire Trerrier article. None has agreed with you here however you keep vandalizing the article:

Where have I done original research in the actual article? Everything is referenced. Stop blindly pointing to something and actually demonstrate it. That reference by duffy does mention staffies. http://www.greyhoundpets.org.au/publications/ResearchArticleWhichBreedsareMostAggressive.pdf Go to page 7 and read the TABLE'S FOOTNOTE. There is a reason there is a little superscript next to the term pit bull. And BTW, APBTs and Staffies are co-registered by the UKC and AKC all the time, and a recent champ had APBT and staffie papers. They are regularly interbred, they are the same dog. So your point is moot anyway. No one has agreed with me? The only people discussing this are you and I and Dodo bird has said like 2 things. Wvguy8258 (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

1.you can't use directly info from the ATTS site since it is primary research 2. your second source Christensen, E. et al. (2007) Aggressive behavior in adopted dogs that passed a temperament test doesn't mention the American Staffordshire Terriers, nor does it the ATTS, it's another temperament test. perhaps it needs a different article 3.your third source Snopek, Roxanne Willems. (2006) Dangerous Dogs. Altitude Publishing. Alberta Canada is from a person who run various anti-pitbull sites. 4.your forth source Duffy, D. et al. (2008) Breed differences in canine aggression is reliable, even if you misquoted it as the article states that Pitbulls showed to greater aggressiveness toward other dogs however less toward humans compared with other breeds. However the American Staffordshre Terrier is not mentioned, t is about the American Pitbull Terrier Usre Wvguy8258 is making fun from the article trying to push his personal views, basing his edits on "comon sense", own research published on the article's talk page, links to pitbull attacks on the article's talk page and calling owners idiots and wikipedia unreliable because its democracy89.123.229.29 (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

As you admitted, the Christensen publication is about temperament tests in general. The ATTS test is a specific case of temperament test, therefore the publication applies. It is like an article being about all cars, and you objecting because it is not specifically about the Honda Civic. Wvguy8258 (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It is quite charitable that you at least allow in parts of your own source. It is noticed that you cut off the part that undermined your quote originally. If you go to the dispute resolution board you will see that only one editor Noleander has written anything. In their point "(4) include material that present the opposing point of view about Temperament Tests (in a general way, without reference to ABA) for instance, claiming that the tests are flawed or unreliable." It makes it obvious that the very idea of temperament tests can be critiqued. Therefore, Christensen stays. Next, you remove Duffy simply because I mentioned one part but not the part you'd like. That is not misquoting as you have stated. And Duffy does explicitly mention the Staffy. Go read it. You missed something. As far as Snopek, where is the proof she runs anti-pit bull websites? That is not criteria not to use a published work ESPECIALLY since she is directly interviewing and quoting the President of the ATTS. What about Schaffner, your lawyer author? She seems to be a general advocate for dogs over considerations of humans by my estimation, to the point of being misanthropic, does that mean I get to remove what you took from her book? No. Also, you are bringing up the ATTS test. Perhaps the ATTS is not a fit source for data analysis, but they are surely a fit source to describe what the ATTS test actually is. Or would you rather someone transcribe what their web site says about these brute facts first? Lastly, you remove references to the akc and american staffie club websites while at least the akc one is used elsewhere. Finally, your little personal diatribe at the end is interesting. You accuse me of pushing my views? I simply see that you are making a one sided case of your own, and I am countering it. Of course, some mechanics of what is done is based upon common sense. Isn't sentence construction somewhat based upon this? Further, my own research on the talk page was simply giving you a mathematical equation that shows you in error about self-selection bias, that is all. It never found its way onto the article page, nor did I ever think it should be. It was for your benefit, as I made clear. Lastly, when did I call anyone an idiot? Hit control + f and search for idiot, you are the first to write that word. I'm telling you K84m97/89.123.208.58 I will revert your edits daily until an editor comes in to settle this. I cannot assume good faith or reasonableness on your part, especially sense you removed edits that came from your own sources. All of what you wrote can be shortened to "this article shall remain as 89.123.208.58 would like it to be." Wvguy8258 (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wvguy8258 if you would read the article you'd find out that I reinserted your edits from the American Bar Association, morever you critique of the temperament wasn't about the ATTS, it was about the temperament tests in general,Duffy writes about pitbulls and you misquoted the work as you inserted the aggressiveness toward other dogs but you didn't mention that the breed is less aggressive then others toward humans.89.123.229.29 (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you could quote that author and then cut off exactly where she says that this result should be taken with a grain of salt is profound in terms of POV. Do you know what "take with a grain of salt" means? Wvguy8258 (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You and I obviously differ in what misquoting means. And the editor said that critique of temperament tests could be inserted.Wvguy8258 (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I have admitted that I occasionally forget to log in but you then call me out of the 2 times I have made that lapse. What is your excuse k84m97? Wvguy8258 (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My excuse is that I do not have an account yet. You are insulting users on this talk page constantly: by stating above "pit bull owners are special" "The bottom 50% cannot spell cat and has developed carpal tunnel from too much finger sniffing", "bold type? seems idiotic at best in context". Furthermore Wvguy8258 is basing his edits on "common sense" and his own work published here on the talk page plus the many videos with pitbull attacks inserted by him here. The reliable sources he used were taken out of context thus reflecting hi point of view. This discussion is going on on the DRN however he keeps vandalizing the page calling wikipedia unreliable because of its democracy. Today he was dismissed from Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests as doing forum shop.

Those insults of mine are dated from how long ago? I did say that. Am I doing that now? No. So stop with that. Further, you are lying about not having an account. What you are saying about me basing this on my own work or pit bull attack videos is false. Anyone that reads my edits will see that. The reliable sources I used were not taken out of context. Please explain how that is the case if they were. You are simply asserting things.Wvguy8258 (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I also should point out that this discussion hardly can be followed as user Wvguy8258 constantly modifies the edits made by him days ago89.123.229.29 (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have not changed any thing on this talk page. I might have inadvertently modified a past article edit of mine in an effort to revert. Wvguy8258 (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stick to the DRN and do not start a new section here.Citizen of the USA (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Dangerous animal

All breeds Bite!!!!!!

"Today is just another day - to me they're all the same I have the worst of genes you see, I bear the "Pitt Bull" shame. The shame is in our numbers, there's thousands with no home. Thousands just like me you'll find, in kennels all alone.

My mum was "just a Pitt Bull", my father - well who knows? Mum, too, became unwanted, as the last puppy goes. And then begins the process, of money-making deals A life of "moving on" unfolds, who cares how the Pitt Bull; feels? If you have the cash to hand, the Pitt Bull pup is yours But that pup is getting bigger now, just look at those big paws.

You brought me for your image, thought I'd make you look more tough But you'll find my boisterous nature has already got too much. If you had thought to train me, with kindness and with praise You would have had a faithful friend to share your darkest days. I would lay down my life for you, but you simply cannot see You make sure you get your money back on what you paid for me.

And on it goes, until one day, I'm no longer worth a dime The retail on an adult staff - not worth the waste of time. So what happens to a Pitt bull now? Do you really want to know? Do you care what will become of us, when we leave our final home?

Have you ever thought to wonder, "Where is that Pitt bull now?" The "Pitt bull" has another name; he's become a "stray" somehow. Me, I was put into a car and driven far away The door held open, I jumped out, I thought to run and play. It was with joy and happy heart I turned to look for you You drove away with all my trust and a piece of my heart too.

I wondered round for many days before I was brought here. Now I wait with heavy heart, trepidation and with fear. Seven days is all I have you see, seven days for you to claim The little dog that you threw out, for which you have no shame.

This is my last goodbye now my seven days are up If only more thought had gone into the future of that pup As the needle empties to my veins I lay down with one last sigh I'm sorry I was born a Pitt bull, because it means that I must die." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnerwetter45 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is terribly biaised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.174.228 (talk) 17:11, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Is this a joke? First off, the date is wrong. I move that this neutrality dispute be removed immediately - we might as well say that the saying "Dog is Man's best friend" is biased because dogs have attacked men. I'm sick of people writing that "it's criminal to say..." let's avoid hyperbole please. Oy veyKaiguy 20:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

For the dead kid, no, it is probably not a joke (cf. http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=24&art_id=nw20070826171341312C850803) . And the saying "Dog is Man's best friend" is just a saying, not a fact. I agree on the neutrality dispute, it's contradictory to tell a dog race is "highly stable around children" when one of its members attacked and killed a child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potemkine (talk • contribs) 09:43, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

The 27th August 2007, in France, an 18 month old boy died. He was attacked by an American Staffordshire terrier a week earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.115.228 (talk) 08:49, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

8/31/07 - We have an angel for a pet. She puts up with the antics of my 2-3 year old monster/son, and she is loving with all people (including babies and children) who comes to our home, while still being an excellent and obedient guard dog. Despite her perfect behavior and disposition, she is a dog and, much like children, dogs have inherent traits. Dogs behave in the way they are raised. Our Rottie, we believe, was taken from our back yard because she loved everyone. Our Doberman/German Shepard was the star of the community as a child (although a dear friend of mine was mauled by one similar and underwent millions in treatment), but the cocker spaniel we adopted was mean and aggresive (so was our shitzu). ALL dogs are prone to snap and, unfortunately, all dogs have the propensity to be jealous of or dislike children, not just particular breeds. ASTs are ferociously obedient, in general, which is what makes them great pets and great fighters, alike (not substantiated by any references, just many things I have read over the years). How they are trained and kept is the difference. In an encyclopedia, I expect truthful generalizations and there would be an assumed disclaimer that not all information on things as changeable as dogs' personality traits can be 100% accurate. These generalizations are correct and, despite the sadness of the 18-month old's circumstances, this could have happened with any other dog (or cat) large enough to do such damage. I feel very sorry for the family, but I maintain that the dispute is inaccurate and that these dogs are generally loyal pets and wonderful with children. Perhaps the article can benefit from the word "general" a bit more, but disputing based on one incident is difficult to substantiate. Jeina27 03:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Jenna

Jeina27 is trying to influence the wiki using her own anecdotal experience mixed with other loosely related sentences.

Some member of every breed of dog has, at some point in time, bitten a person. Some member of most dog breeds have killed a person at some point in time, many of them children. It very much depends on how the individual dog was raised and trained and the individual circumstances. In this particular article, the description was taken almost verbatim from a website and left out an important qualifier - that the dog be properly trained and socialized before being considered a good, stable family pet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.0.67 (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Realize why the concept of "all else being equal" should be your friend. Google ceteris paribus.

9/11/07 - Where was the baby's parent? In another room I expect. That is why it's not a good idea to leave a child alone with any dog (even if it's a family pet and the sweetest thing in the world). The child could have done something to the dog to provoke it. I move to have all notifications on this page removed. It's a matter of opinion not fact that this breed is dangerous. It all depends on how these dogs are raised (and that goes for every breed). When we first started researching the breed as a family pet, we found a statistic that there are more Labrador and Golden Retriever reports of biting incidents than any other breed. I adopted an unknown Am Staff from the shelter here in Texas and I have two small children, 6 and 3. I adopted her because she is gentle, loving, and generally protective of my small children. She was a stray - could have been used for unlawful breeding (I live in South Dallas... one of the hot spots of dog fighting)... but regardless she was an unknown to us. We took her in because she needed a home and she showed an overall sense of motherly caring for our children. But I WILL NOT leave my children unattended with her even for a minute. I call her to me when I leave the room and she stays by my side when I'm not in the same room with the kids. - Lucy Casimir, Dallas, TX 09:26, 11 September 2007

The above comment reads like a comment to a newspaper article written about a pit bull bite. Lucy then says it is a matter of opinion not fact that this breed is dangerous. Ok....so are you inferring that most things are opinions which are equally valid because of their status an opinion? Are you stating that this breed really isn't dangerous? Then all the assertions about how it being all about how it is raised. Please, get a prison pen pal and write this to them instead.

Ah, well Amstaffs and APBTS were BRED to be extraordinary with children, making a well-bred Amstaff much safer around children than many breeds that are not bred for such a trait. And what's with everyone posting about Amstaff attacks? Do you see anyone posting about the two siberian huskies that mauled a child to death or the golden retriever that attacked a child, causing her to need 56 stitches in the head alone? No. Sorry, all breeds attack. RiotMonday 23:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

All breeds attack, sure, but what profound point is that making? In this issue, we should be concerned with the probability of life-altering or ending attacks as compared among breeds. Also, picking out a few dog attacks and then asking questions about media coverage, with no evidence at all either way, is not a reliable way to assess reporting coverage as a function of breed group. Also, you do not seem to agree with the record that shows that AmStaffs and others were artificially selected over many generations to craft a breed to use to fight other dogs. The baby sitting gene was not selected for. You are likely referring to the nanny dog myth as well. The claim that staffs and related breeds were called nanny dogs in the past has not been supported. There is not early citation showing this to be the case, just one article in a 1970s newsletter about staffies. The references after that are just among groups, with overlap ,creating an echo chamber of lie. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Shut up for all "country man"!!!!!!!!! I grown up with an AMSTAFF, he is wonderful, never bit me, helped me very much!!!! Common and let's banning every mother cuz some mother kill their child!!!

I believe the term is "shout out". Plus, think a bit in terms of net benefit for universally applied rules. In other words, banning pit bulls would not have quite the same negative effect as banning mothers. I doubt you will get that. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I've grown up with a Staffordshire Terrier and the animal has never once made an aggressive action toward me. The dog used to sleep at the foot of my bed every night and never once attacked me. Just because there are some instances where there is an animal who attacks a person doesn't necessarily mean every single animal of the entire breed is bad. It follows along the same logic to say "A black man mugged me today, all black people should be banned from America." Just because there are a few instances in which a dog attacks its owners doesn't mean the entire breed is bad. This breed just happens to be a physically strong breed that is capable of doing some harm. Besides, no creature usually attacks unless its provoked. If I beat my dog all day long, starved it nearly to death, and pumped it full of drugs to make it angry, sure my dog's going to kill the next person it sees. Don't let the actions of a few bad owners create a generalization of an entire breed of dogs. [anonymous] 15:41, 7 October 2007 (EST)

Above anony: 1. gave anecdotal evidence, 2. stated that generalizing or forming a probability statement about dog breeds is equivalent to racism, 3. cast those with which he does not agree as making universal statement, which they usually have not and is inappropriate in this discussion, and therefore creating a straw man, and 4. speaks of nurture effects vibrantly so as to avoid or overshadow obvious nature (genetic) influences. Frighteningly, this person is an above average pit bull advocate. The bottom 50% cannot spell cat and has developed carpal tunnel from too much finger sniffing. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, let's not forget that you are not supposed to leave a child in a room unattended with ANY dog. The reason the child was attacked was not the dog's fault, but the parents. 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.145.186 (talk)

I read that article as posted above, a) a "pitbull" is not a breed b) American Staffordshire Terriers are a recognized breed, and are not a "pitbull" c) the contributions at the bottom of the page discussing dog attacks are not attributed to any bully breeds, the woman who need the facial transplant was attacked by a black lab. The dog which attacked this woman's baby was not even hers, so what was she doing leaving her baby with an unknown dog in her home? poor parenting. I guess we should note that Black labs are a dangerous dog because one of them ripped a woman's face off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.130.244 (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

how about every other breed of dog that attacks people everyday. i grew up my whole life having dogs, including Amstaffs rottweilers, boxers, heelers, and dalmations. the only dog that ever bit me was a dalmation but i don't see any bans on them. i now own 3 pit bulls who are wonderfull dogs i picked up at the shelter and one stray. the only thing they've ever done to anybody was attempt to lick them to death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.133.253 (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

every dog is somewhat dangerous. they're animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.133.253 (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Temperament

Why is there no mention of dog aggression in many of today's bloodlines? I know it's not the dog/breeds fault, but there are plenty of inner city dog fighting rings these days that specifically breed AmStaffs (and a few others) to be as aggressive as possible towards other dogs. It seems rather biased to no mention this when it is an important factor for people to consider when adopting a dog of this breed that came from an unknown breeder or was picked up off the streets by animal control in the city. We have two rescue AmStaffs in our neighborhood and their owners have to have them very secure on leash when taking them out because they are the nicest dogs in the world to people, but will do everything in their power to attack and kill any dog in the neighborhood that they see passing by. This is NOT uncommon!!! It is the same situation in my mother's neighborhood! Again, why no mention of this when it's such a glaringly obvious trait of some of the bloodlines that are out there??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.48.235 (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This section is in serious need of revision. It is heavily biased and speaks of the dog breed as if it were an individual. Please edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.125.11.58 (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's like this in all dog breed articles. It's probably a cut and paste from the AKC breed description. I especially love the way generic dog characteristics are applied to a particular breed as if that breed were unique in that trait. Most dogs are loyal. Many are courageous. All pick up on subtle queues from their owner. I have yet to see a breed description where that breed wasn't described as intelligent.

Dogs: Loyal, brave, courageous, intelligent, fiercely protective, and if not abused or mentally diseased, great with children. ASTs and APBTs are no different from other dogs. They are squirmy bundles of solid muscle though.

Have added NPOV_dispute to temperament-section. This breed does not qualify as an inherent "family pet" as described. For instance: in Denmark, it is one of fourteen breeds that are currently slated to be prohibited as pets. Danish news has multiple and regular articles displaying the ferocity and uncontrollable behaviour of this breed (when in incapable hands). See [this search on DR.dk], the news site of Denmark's national broadcast corporation. Geddeth (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the source from the American Temperament Test Society which is mentioned in the "Temperament" section is more reliable than a Danish newspaper in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.112.114.205 (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The ATTS summaries cannot be used to compare breeds in a reliable manner due to self-selection bias. Google the term. Voluntary and non-free tests of this sort are drastically skewed when the variable of interest (temperament) can be seen to act on the probability of inclusion in the sample. In other words, the effect tends to skim the cream off the top of all breeds. So, you are not comparing average breed tendencies at all. Lastly, the test can also be flunked for timidity. The test was originally designed to test animals for suitability in schutzhund work. Also, each breed is judged against its own breed standard. Therefore, necessary characteristics for a passing score shift as well. Interestingly, I emailed the ATTS test folks and told them about this. They were not aware of these issues in how they related to interbreed comparisons and said they did not have a statistician working with them. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the previsious statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.120.208.209 (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I own an am-staf, she's extremely friendly and I trust her to behave in any situation. The rason these dogs have a bad reputation is due to their muscular build which attracts the worst type of dog owner. Stating a dog attack as a reason these dogs are vicious is ridiculous, most large dog breeds have had a fatal attack, yet nobody quotes German Shepard, Lab, or Golden Retriever attacks. DOG BEHAVIOR BOILS DOWN TO THE SKILL OF THE OWNER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.173.220 (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved. Somebody should remove the template.FrancescoAv (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Black bears are also warm, loving family animals in the right hands. It is wrong to suggest that all bears are dangerous, when clearly it's home environment that determines the bear's behavior, especially in the presence of children. In Russia, thousands of families keep black bears as pets with no problems, and bears are kept by families in America with no problems. In fact many family bears ride bicycles and will walk upright with the family, even holding hands. Unfortunately, bears are discriminated against just like AmStaffs, and owners should come to their defense. This article needs more content supporting these good natured animals. Santamoly (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Now you are comparing a domesticated animal to a wild animal. In Holland was a "pitbull" ban for 12 years and then was lifted because the state concluded that a breed specific legislation is irrelevant and needless and they enforced a non breed specific legislation which is giving results. You also should read the results of the American Temperament Test Society [[10]] where the Amstaff is placed before many popular breeds. I think this research is more relevant than a Danish newspaper.k84m97 (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

:This guy is obviously gifted in identifying satire.

Please mark this as resolved Review http://www.atts.org/ for breed statistics conducted over the past 30 years across multiple breeds and 30,000 individual dogs using an unbiased temperament tests that shows the American Staffordshire Terrier to have one of the highest rated temperaments on average. The temperament of this breed is proven fact and not opinion by any one person or group of people. It is also not based on the opinion of media or a legislative body creating breed specific laws proven to be ineffective.. Lastly, the American Staffordshire Terrier has a primary genetic foundation from the Staffordshire Bull Terrier first bred in Staffordshire, England. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier often had the nick-name of "nanny-dogs" due to their extreme care kindness with children. Two references: http://www.pbrc.net/faq.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staffordshire_Bull_Terrier Dhubbard555 (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The nanny dog thing is a myth. It has been claimed by so many people without reference has occurred for so long that it is considered obviously true. However, there is no evidence that these dogs were called nanny dogs or something of the sort in the past. The first utterance is by a staffie terrier owner writing in a breed newsletter, this happened in the 1970s. If these dogs were nanny dogs or something of the sort, you would that a careful search of archived information transferred from print to electronic format would reveal this being said. However, you will not find it. Therefore, the burden of proof for the claim has not been met. Try to prove me wrong, find the citation. (google nanny dog myth and read the first hit)

Also, you do not understand why the ATTS test cannot be used for comparison among breeds using summary results. That is because there will obviously be self-selection bias. That occurs when a sample is not representative of the target population (all dogs of a certain breed). Dog owners will be influenced by their own perception of their dog's temperament when deciding whether or not to sign-up for and pay to take the ATTS test. This can have a powerful effect in skimming the cream off all breeds, which results in rankings by breed being untrustworthy. With emotionally charged issues, which this is for many people, it is common for evidence supporting your beliefs will be treated differently than other classes of evidence.

Lastly, your two references are not credible in this context.

Have removed NPOV_dispute from temperament-section. The dispute was based solely on one person's opinion and a newspaper article from a country that has recently released a long term study that contradicts the newspaper and proves breed specific legislation is not effective. This breed like most dogs are wonderful family pets. The number of human deaths by dogs each year is statistically insignificant regardless of breed. No evidence was shown that proved this breed was a danger to people or child other than a couple of specific examples of attacks which could be found with any breed (including a Pomeranian that killed a child in the 1980's). Several pieces of evidence were added by multiple people that the American Staffordshire Terrier has a better temperament than most dog breeds and this is not the place to argue if dogs as a whole are good family pets. Dhubbard555 (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

How many life-altering attacks per fatality do you reckon? Also, how many deaths of other pets by dog attack per human fatality? Wvguy8258 (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:American Staffordshire Terrier/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Fan site? Yes, that's exactly what it is. RedAlice 16:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC) The entire article should be redone and locked down, and the talk page screeds discarded. What a mess! Orthotox (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 20:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)