Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Dogs (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Dogs To-do:
Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Dogs:

SourcesEdit

I've just removed from German Shepherd some content cited to perfectdogbreeds.com, on the grounds that that is not a reliable source (it's registered to an anonymous entity in Cheshire, England). I've also recently removed from the same page content cited to yourpurebredpuppy.com and dogster.com, for the same reason – these are random internet websites with no reputation for accuracy or reliability, and not remotely suitable for use as sources for Wikipedia. I'd like to suggest that as a matter of urgency we should start a list of such unusable sites, with a view to removing them in short order from any article that cites them, and setting up filters that would prevent them from being added anywhere in Wikipedia; and also make a start on a more difficult task, that of identifying some sources for which there is consensus that that they are to be considered reliable by our standards.

As a very small start, I propose deprecation of:

  • perfectdogbreeds.com
  • yourpurebredpuppy.com
  • dogster.com

and recognition as reliable of

  • fci.be

Is this worthwhile? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion, general agreement
Agree, about the three sites you have mentioned above, all completely fail as RS:
  • perfectdogbreeds.com terms of service states "Perfectdogbreeds does not promise that the site or any content, service or feature of the site will be error-free ... Perfectdogbreeds disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including any warranties of accuracy ..."
  • yourpurebredpuppy.com terms of use states "We make no guaruntee or warranty that our information is accurate, legal, reliable or safe."
  • dogster.com terms and conditions of use states "Belvoir Media Group LLC does not warant that the sites will operate error-free ..." NB Belvoir Media Group LLC is the website's owner
On a number of pages I have had to remove similar content from a number of similar websites most of which make similar disclaimers, and it seems to be the same editors that continually reintroduce it. Just because it gets a Google hit doesn't make it reliable and/or notable.
Re fci.be, personally I do not believe it should be treated any differently to any other national kennel club. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC).
Just my opinion: the FCI evaluates the information submitted by individual kennel clubs, and this places it a a higher level of reliability; however, I added it here simply as an example of a website that we could, with due caution, regard as reliable.
Some more that we cannot trust may be:
I've removed all three from Kumaon Mastiff. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Also:
Some more:
  • www.bulldoginformation.com
  • dogappy.com
  • www.pawculture.com
  • www.petpremium.com
  • thehappypuppysite.com
  • www.thelabradorsite.com
What are your thoughts on the best way to deal with these formally? Lump them together under an RfC at RSN? If passed we could add a list to the project page with a permalink. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC).

Agreed. JLAN and Cavalryman, I regard a website as being only reliable as the sources its cites. Many of these websites (above) have no author taking responsibility for the content, do not cite sources, and are basically anonymous opinion pieces. I am in favour of removing anything they have to offer, and encourage Project members to grasp the nettle and commence their deletions from all dog-related articles. William Harris talk  00:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

First thoughts on how to start dealing with these: either just go ahead and remove them and see if there's any complaint, or (probably better in the long term):
  • reach consensus here on those listed above – is a week long enough for all interested to comment?
  • start a /Deprecated sources subpage and
  • use Special:LinkSearch to find and remove any mainspace occurrence of those;
  • rinse and repeat.
It seems to me that those listed so far are so obviously unusable, and so unlikely to be used outside this wikiproject, that local consensus should be sufficient; but if anyone suggests that these might be appropriate sources then yes, RfC is the next step.
Removing crap websites seems to be the easy part; identifying and agreeing on unusable books may be more of a challenge. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers, William Harris, Cavalryman and other interested editors - please see User_talk:Atsme/sandbox#More about RS Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Reliable sources Updated the link Atsme 💬 📧 16:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC). Perhaps we should also consider establishing a subpage such as Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Atsme Talk 📧 12:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
More bad sites
I wish to add to the list, some I have removed today:
  • vetstreet.com
  • dogbreedplus.com
  • 101dogbreeds.com
  • dogtime.com
  • dogs.petbreeds.com
  • designerdoginfo.wordpress.com
  • puppiesndogs.com
  • dogdisease.info
  • petguide.com
  • dogzone.com
  • allthingsdogs.com
  • teacupdogdaily.com
  • thedogsjournal.com

Cavalryman (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC).

And more today:

  • dogable.net
  • topdogtips.com
  • sittersforcritters.com
  • pets4homes.co.uk
  • retrieverbud.com
  • canna-pet.com
  • k9rl.com
  • mixbreeddog.com
  • iams.com
  • leashesandlovers.com
  • puppydogweb.com
  • thegoodypet.com

Cavalryman (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC).

And a few more:

  • dogpage.us
  • puppiesclub.com
  • puppy-basics.com

Cavalryman (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Some more today:

  • animalso.com
  • europetnet.com
  • russiandog.net

Cavalryman (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add another that I assumed was already here:

  • molosserdogs.com

Cavalryman (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC).

A couple more:

  • dogipedia.ru
  • dogsglobal.com

Cavalryman (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC).

Consolidated listEdit

Please see the main list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Reliable sources for potential updates. We should probably make a more prominent link to that page. Atsme 💬 📧 16:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  • 101dogbreeds.com  Y
  • allthingsdogs.com  Y
  • animalso.com  Y
  • bulldoginformation.com  Y
  • canna-pet.com  Y
  • completedogsguide.com  Y
  • cosmosmith.com  Y
  • designerdoginfo.wordpress.com  Y
  • dogable.net  Y
  • dogappy.com  Y
  • dogbreedplus.com  Y
  • dogdisease.info  Y
  • dogipedia.ru  Y
  • dogpage.us  Y
  • dogs.petbreeds.com  Y
  • dogsglobal.com  Y
  • dogtime.com  Y
  • dogzone.com  Y
  • europetnet.com  Y
  • europetnet.org
  • iams.com
  • k9rl.com
  • leashesandlovers.com
  • mastiffdogssite.com  Y
  • mixbreeddog.com
  • molosserdogs.com  Y
  • pawculture.com
  • perfectdogbreeds.com
  • petguide.com
  • petpremium.com
  • pets4homes.co.uk
  • puppiesclub.com
  • puppiesndogs.com
  • puppy-basics.com
  • puppydogweb.com
  • retrieverbud.com
  • russiandog.net
  • scamperingpaws.com
  • sittersforcritters.com
  • teacupdogdaily.com
  • thedogsjournal.com
  • thegoodypet.com
  • thehappypuppysite.com  Y
  • thelabradorsite.com  Y
  • topdogtips.com  Y
  • vetstreet.com  Y (for dogs only)
  • yourpurebredpuppy.com  Y

DiscussionEdit

Have started to remove from articles, will tick as complete. This will likely require review again. Cavalryman (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC).

I've forgotten if or how we agreed to actually go about this, would some kind soul remind me (preferably in words of about one syllable or fewer). Anyway, here are three that I've just removed from Chihuahua:
  • www.chihuahuawardrobe.com
  • k9carts.com
  • dogcare.dailypuppy.com ("Come to DailyPuppy.com for your fix of the cutest furbabies of every breed")
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

A couple of "good websites"Edit

I would like to propose two websites containing a number of very informative articles as "good sources":

Both authors have been published widely in dog publications and Hancock in particular has a number of published books on dogs. Both websites contain a number of articles, most of which have previously been published in magazines but some may not have been. I think both meet the criteria under WP:RSSELF as "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Cavalryman (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC).

At davidhancockondogs.com, the pix to the right - a man out of my own heart! William Harris (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Formerly of The Light Infantry, I have most of his books although I would really like a copy of The mastiffs but it is well out of print and around £150 online, there is a transcript on his website though. Cavalryman (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC).
Now I am lost in sources, the websites you have listed mainly contain printed information and most of the popular web resources are listed in "bad sources", kennel club websites that seem to have reliable information cannot be used as primary sources... Could you please give examples of dog-related web resources that would be considered suitable?--LoraxJr 22:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:SPS and then WP:USINGSPS, basically if it has not been produced by an author who has previously demonstrated expertise in the field, or a publisher with a good reputation for robust editorial oversight and fact checking, then it's pretty safe to assume it's self-published. Most of the "popular web resources" are content farms, and when you scrutinise them closely you realise often Wikipedia is their starting point, we don't site ourselves.
The "good websites" above contain a series of articles written by two authors who are expert dog writers, both have previously been very widely published in a number of reputable publications from very good publishers and all of the articles on their websites are transcripts of articles that have been published in such publications, that's why they are suitable for use as sources. Cavalryman (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC).
Ok, that makes clearer on one side and much harder to find sources on the other. This rule is the equally applicable to sources in other languages too? LoraxJr 11:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes it is applicable to sources in all languages, and yes it can be difficult to find sources. This is why large tracts of text and even occasionally articles are deleted as they are not cited to reliable sources. Cavalryman (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC).

As a note, you can permanently prevent those mylittlepuppy.com not-sources from being added to articles at WP:BLACKLIST. It's a bit of an extreme measure though, so only use if if there's a problem with a site being persistently added. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Confirmation requestEdit

  • Note: removed those who answered from this list.

Pinging all members, and asking that you please confirm that you are still active by signing in below. If you are no longer active, simply delete your user name from the participant's list. If you remain an active participant (hoping you do), then please take a moment to read the section below about the critical updates, and new research. User:4444hhhh, Coaster1983, Cyclonebiskit, Hutcher, Miyagawa, R9tgokunks, User:Steven Walling, Dougweller, User:Genegerbreader, CanineCrew, LoraxJr, DogBehaviorPro, Dogsrtoocute100, User:Ashjordan76,User:Necctaylor, Mcfuggins
Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 21:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

ActiveEdit

  • MarialeegRVT (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Atsme 💬 📧 21:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • KING WIKIPEDIAN DCCLXIV (talk | contribs) 21:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I am still active but a tad out of practice. i was legally blind for a few years until late april 2022. I am back now. LiPollis (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    So happy that you're back, and it makes me happy to know you cleared that vision hurdle. Atsme 💬 📧 23:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Present and active. Annwfwn (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am too ...
    Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) (contribs) 14:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm here Dswitz10734 (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Present.Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • ARoseWolf 13:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • welllll... I don't often have time these days, but I do check in from time to time. I've hardly had anything to say for a while, though. If you don't mind me lurking and mostly quiet, I'd love to stay. Elf | Talk 02:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Absolutely - thx for checking in! Atsme 💬 📧 02:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Critical updates about phenotypes, genetics and selective breedingEdit

The following provides important updates about phenotypes, genetics, and selective breeding.

Dog ancestryEdit

(see subsection List of research articles below)

  • Modern dog breeds are genetically disconnected from ancient ancestors
  • Ancestral dog genomics challenges popular breed stereotypes
  • Ancient dogs are no closer to the first domestic dogs than other breeds
  • Breed does not predict behaviour

Some of the information in our current dog breed articles may be cited to outdated sources/research, or perhaps misinterpreted or taken out of context. Some articles may include unverifiable anecdotal accounts that are stated as facts in wikvoice. There is also some concern over BSL advocacies, or pit bull haters who are known to cause disruption on WP by socking, POV pushing, etc. Regardless, our job is to separate the wheat from the chaff. For example, "pit bull" is not a breed, although it is used ubiquitously as though it were, and is based on the mistaken belief that modern purebred conformation show dogs are the same dogs as their pit–fighting ancestors from centuries past. It is used to classify all bully-types, and has its roots in the (mistaken) belief that they are the same dogs as the heterogenous group of mixed breed dogs (or hybrids) once used in the bloodsports of rat–, bull–, bear– and badger– baiting back in the 1800s, and believed to be the progenitors of our modern purebreds dogs. And what is it based on? Primarily paintings & sculptures, and the occasional description of a dog type in a manuscript or letter – anecdotes.

When bloodsports became illegal, some of those ancestral dogs were later developed for the clandestine sport of dog fighting. However, that changed with the founding of the first breed registry in the UK, The Kennel Club (KC), founded in the latter 1800s, shortly followed by the American Kennel Club (AKC). Reputable breed registries would not register dogs that were to be used as fighting dogs, and also required a breed standard and show records. The focus went from the fighting pit to the conformation show dog ring. Dog breeders focused on the development of purebred conformation show dogs that became the foundation stock of the modern dog breeds we know today. As a result of all the confusion stemming from the pit fighting days, along with the multiple aliases that were used for dogs in centuries past, and a lack of knowledge about how selective breeding can drastically change/alter phenotypes and genetics, WP now has a host of dog breed articles containing a mix of anecdotes and material that comprises both false and factual information. Our job is to separate the wheat from the chaff by using the updated science and secondary sources while adhering closely to our core content policies, NPOV, OR, & V. If you're wondering why it matters, the simple answer is that accuracy is of the utmost importance because you never know who is reading our articles: Wikipedia Articles Sway Some Legal Judgments. And there's also this CBS News report among others. Atsme 💬 📧 21:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  • What does "Ancient dogs" mean in "Ancient dogs are no closer to the first domestic dogs than other breeds"?  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    Hi, Mac - good to see you! It's been a while. See the Durham University Study below. The ancient dog concept came up in a discussion at the AfD for List of dog fighting breeds with reference to the ancient Chinese fighting dog that has been incorrectly linked to the modern Chinese Shar Pei like what is happening with all the modern breeds with no consideration for the "selective breeding evolution" of those breeds. To quote Scientific America: But when we look at the DNA, we see that there’s all this diversity in the past that is not represented in present-day dogs.” Atsme 💬 📧 01:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    I'm always around, just not as active generally as when WP was my main hobby. :-) Ancient dogs aren't breeds, in the modern sense, so "than other breeds" doesn't really make sense here; maybe "than modern breeds". But "Ancient dogs had more genetic diversity than modern breeds" (what you say the source indicates) isn't equivalent to "Ancient dogs are no closer to the first domestic dogs than other breeds", which sounds like a questionable claim (along the same lines as "Iron Age people were no closer to Bronze Age people than modern people are"; it doesn't seem logically possible).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    Wait a minute; I found your quote of the relevant source material; it's: "Breeds such as the Akita, Afghan Hound and Chinese Shar-Pei, which have been classed as 'ancient', are no closer to the first domestic dogs than other breeds". This is a completely different sentiment; we're confusing two uses of "ancient" here. What that source is saying is that those three breeds, which are modern breeds, are called "ancient" by some people, but are not actually any more genomically ancient than other modern breeds. I.e., it is criticizing use of the word "ancient". The other source material is saying that actually ancient (historic, non-modern) samples of dog DNA from archaeology demonstrate greater genetic diversity than modern dogs (which is what we'd expect, because they haven't been subject to several hundred to several thousand additional years of in-breeding).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    Mac, apologies – it wasn't my intention to confuse. Thx for clarifying. Atsme 💬 📧 18:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Inaccuracy, misinformationEdit

The CDC strongly recommends against breed-specific laws in its oft-cited study of fatal dog attacks, noting that data collection related to bites by breed is fraught with potential sources of error (Sacks et al., 2000). ~ ASPCA

The CDC stopped including the breed names after their 1995–1996 report.

Some of our lists are cesspools of misinformation, and raise serious concern because the names of victims are included. For example List of fatal dog attacks, List of fatal dog attacks in the United States, List of dog fighting breeds, Pit bull and other related articles that are based on the same incorrect ancestral history and mistaken belief that modern purebreds (bona fide breeds) recognized by official breed registries are the same dogs as the ancestral pit fighting dogs when that couldn't be further from the truth, as proven or challenged by scientific research. See the following deletion arguments that prevailed, resulting in the deletion of 3 lists that relied on misinformation and anecdotal accounts. We are still dealing with similar lists and articles for the same reasons. Atsme 💬 📧 21:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

List of research articlesEdit

  1. Science: Ancestry-inclusive dog genomics challenges popular breed stereotypes
  2. Nature: Massive study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour
  3. Smithsonian: Dog Breed Doesn’t Affect Behavior, According to New Genetic Research"
  4. Observations | Evolution: The Curious Case of Dogs by Christie Wilcox, an author for Nature MagazineWe picked dogs that were less aggressive or looked unique. And in doing so, we spurred on rapid diversification and evolution in an unbelievable way.
  5. The Conversation: Why Dog Breeds Aren't Considered Separate SpeciesIn the course of dog domestication, their behaviour, morphology and physique has changed, and differences among dog breeds are indeed astonishing. Imagine if future palaeontologists were to find Chihuahua remains in the fossil record: this animal would appear to have little in common with wolves.
  6. The Atlantic: Humans Can’t Quit a Basic Myth About Dog Breeds,

Breed doesn’t have that big an effect on a dog’s personality.

  1. Durham University Study: Modern dog breeds genetically disconnected from ancient ancestorsBreeds such as the Akita, Afghan Hound and Chinese Shar-Pei, which have been classed as "ancient", are no closer to the first domestic dogs than other breeds due to the effects of lots of cross-breeding, the study found.
  2. PLOS: This investigation also demonstrates how strong artificial selection may affect not only desired and selected phenotypes, but also the health of domestic animals... Strong selection by breeders for dogs who retained their skin folds into adulthood has altered the phenotype of the breed to the more commonly heavily wrinkled meatmouth type.
  3. PNAS:(2012) Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography
  4. Lewis & Clark Law School: THE BLACK MAN’S DOG: THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION

Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 21:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is partisan. @Atsme: you forgot to mention that dogs identified as "pit bulls" are still being flagged in medical reviews as causing disproportionate injury. [1]. Geogene (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I haven't gotten to that yet, but I will, and it involves forensic studies that are likely to surprise you. Atsme 💬 📧 01:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, I'm not a fan of the Schrodinger's Pitbull rhetorical game, but in the meantime, there's this 2019 literature review [2] from the International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology that says, Bite risk by breed from the literature review and bite severity by breed from our case series were combined to create a total bite risk plot. Injuries from Pitbull's [sic] and mixed breed dogs were both more frequent and more severe. This is about as good as any sources in Wikipedia get. Here's a 2020 paper from the Journal of Pediatric Surgery that says, This impact is likely to be further magnified when the breed of the dog is factored in — known high frequency and high severity offending breeds such as pit bulls [22] might require even greater restriction to reduce the risk. It sounds like doctors aren't impressed with this "you can't identify a pitbull" thing. Geogene (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Geogene, I am not aware of any reputable dog breed registry in existence today that has accepted a purebred Pit Bull into its Stud Book or breed registry. The only purebred that I'm aware of with pit bull in its name is the American Pit Bull Terrier, but official breed registry recognition is limited to the UKC & ADBA. We've been fed a lot of media hype about pit bulls for decades and with it, tons of misinformation and fear mongering. In the first article you cited, it states (my bold underline): Breed specific information may shed light on the risk to own certain types of dogs, but this has not currently been substantiated as a single predictive factor. The article repeatedly refers to pit bull as a breed but it rings hollow as to what comprises a dog breed. They provide stats from 2 regionally distinct trauma centers over 15 years but did not name even one specific breed of dog. The following sources and quotes may help clear your lingering confusion:
  1. See AVMA
  2. Reader's Digest which cites your IJPO link.
  3. Experts say: 'Pit Bulls' Don't Exist
  4. Power of the Pedigree
  5. NCRC DBRF
When I see pit bull and mixed breed dogs in a RS, I see red flags 🚩🚩🚩 because pit bull remains undefined and unverifiable. While you make good points about the dangers of dog bites – and I agree it is a problem – there is no good evidence in the sources you provided that substantiates anything beyond mixed breed dog. For the authors to also include pit bull along with mixed breed is redundant. Readers have no way of knowing what different individuals/witnesses consider a pit bull, or what a pit bull is supposed to look like, much less some form of consistency in the anecdotal descriptions in the reports. We have nothing to verify breed in those reports beyond the fact they were dogs.
  • Given the prevalence of breed-specific legislation, there is a surprising lack of evidence to support its efficacy. This is partially due to the large numbers of mixed breed dogs; estimated in the U.S. to be 51% of all dogs. In most cases, identification of mixed breed dogs is based on physical appearance, creating the potential for misidentification or generalization when bites occur. As noted by Scott and Fuller, physical appearance is a poor indicator of breed or behavior when dealing with mixed breed dogs. Several studies investigating bite reports have reported similar inaccuracies, regardless of the level of prior knowledge of the person performing the identification. Members of the general public, animal shelter workers, law enforcement officers, and human health care professionals have all been shown to make incorrect breed determinations. The media also plays a role in shaping the public opinion in relation to specific breeds, yet media reports are often inaccurate and subjective. ~ Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Nov; 16(21): 4081. Published online 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16214081

  • Time published a very informative article back in 2014 titled "The Problem With People, Not Pit Bulls" that is further supported by recent scientific articles in secondary sources.
  • Bite statistics are public record. They can be found at local county facilities as a source to read bite reports, but, with the understanding that what you are looking at is a set of numbers without explanation. Bites and attacks are effects, to which there are always causes. The article goes on to say: Secondly in regards to statistics, when Pit Bulls are routinely mis-identified, it is more than plausible to see how their numbers are high on reports even though they are rated very high by the American Temperament Test Society as friendly dogs. An animal control officer was once asked why a dog in the lost dog runs was labeled as a Pit Bull even though it was an excellent specimen of an American Bulldog, the response was given that “he’ll end up in the wrong hands anyway just because people will think he’s a Pit”.
  • A more in-depth study published in Acta Paediatr. 2018 May; 107(5): 893–899 Dog bites in a U.S. county: age, body part and breed in paediatric dog bites – the study reviewed 14,926 cases of dog bites reported between 2007–2015. Registrations refers to the dog ordinance registration form that owners are required to complete naming their dog's breed, so if they filled in 'pit bull', they don't know the true breed of the dog:
  • A listed dog breed was available for 7998 (53.5%) cases. Breeds classified as ‘mixed’ constituted 1807 reported dog bites (22.5%) and were removed from further breed analysis. Using public data for dog licenses expiring in 2016, a total of 27,015 registrations were reviewed, of which breed data were available for 26,868 (99.5%). Of these, 9045 records (33.7%) were classified as ‘mixed’ breeds. Among those breeds not recorded as ‘mixed’, ‘pit bulls’, which comprised 4.9% of purebred dogs, accounted for 27.2% of all reported bites.

I'll end it here. Enjoy the weekend. Atsme 💬 📧 06:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for all of these explanations and references. I think (but don't have the data for it) that large-dog bites are more likely to be reported than those by smaller breeds, and also that bites from dogs that look like "pit bulls" are more likely to be reported than if, say, Fluffy Collie bit someone, thereby also skewing statistics in a very misleading way. It's a mess out there. A quagmire. We certainly need all the useful research and statistics that we can get. Elf | Talk 02:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Pit bull (and aren't you surprised)Edit

Content disagreement at Talk:Pit_bull#Nipper, your input is welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Also at the GA, Staffordshire Bull Terrier. See TP. Atsme 💬 📧 20:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of RfC at Talk:Staffordshire_Bull_Terrier#Quotes_RfCEdit

Pinging all verified active members & hopefully the non-actives will wake-up and see it, too: MarialeegRVT, KING WIKIPEDIAN DCCLXIV, Lisapollison, SMcCandlish, Annwfwn, Gareth Griffith-Jones, Dswitz10734, Unbiased6969, ARoseWolf, Elf Please participate at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Quotes RfC Atsme 💬 📧 17:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Adding – I initially forgot to add the RfC template, but it is added now so please participate. Atsme 💬 📧 15:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Closed archived discussionEdit

Per a closure request, I have closed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive 14#Proposal to update the project's RS guideline. The result was no consensus. I believe a more conservative revision along the lines proposed by SMcCandlish would be more likely to obtain adequate support. Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Fighting dog merge discussionEdit

There is a merge discussion within the scope of this Project at Talk:Dog fighting#Merge proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Y Atsme 💬 📧 18:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)