Talk:Pit bull

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2026

The American Pit Bull Terrier, also widely known as “Pitbull” is a dog breed recognized by the United Kennel Club (UKC) and the American Dog Breeders Association (ADBA), but not the American Kennel Club (AKC). It is a medium-sized, short-haired dog, of a solid, lean build, whose early ancestors came from England. They are apart of the Bully breed group, and are their own established breed.

From: https://www.ukcdogs.com/american-pit-bull-terrier Laylabrillon (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GrayStorm^{(Talk to me|My Contribs.)} 04:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

change the first paragraph of “pitbulls” or “pit bull” to be the correct term. ~2026-10869-90 (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

There is an article on the American Pit Bull Terrier Traumnovelle (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

References

Latching jaw

while the bbc article sourced does make a claim about a latching jaw it is not based in the veterinarian consensus to the best of what I can find ~2026-31914-90 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2026

Edit the sentence "type dogs accounted for 67% of human dog bite-related fatalities in the United States between 1997 and 1998" to read "type dogs accounted for 67% of the 27 human dog bite-related fatalities in the United States between 1997 and 1998". This introduction of the exact numbers, as provided in the cited study, helps contextualize this issue and provide valuable context to the scale of the problem compared with solely citing percentages. ~2026-27785-36 (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Done Traumnovelle (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! ~2026-27785-36 (talk)

Quote not found in source?

@JackMtnSun: regarding this edit . You couldn't find the quote "It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities" in the source? Did you use Ctrl-F? Geogene (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Geogene Thanks, not sure why Ctrl-F didn't find this quote the first time I searched the PDF, found it this time. JackMtnSun (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Dog attack and death risk - first sentence revisions

@Geogene and others, opening a talk thread to expand on my edit yesterday (that was reverted). In the "Dog attack and death risk" section, the first sentence currently reads:

A 2000 joint review project between researchers in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) found the data indicated that Rottweilers and pit bull–type dogs accounted for 67% of the 27 human dog bite-related fatalities in the United States between 1997 and 1998, and followed with "It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."

Proposed revision:

A 2000 joint review project between researchers in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) found the data indicated that Rottweilers and pit bull–type dogs accounted for just over half (120 of the 238) human dog bite-related fatalities over a 20-year period between 1979 and 1998 in the United States, and concluded "Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates."

Explanation:

1) Stat updated to reflect the full 20-year period of the study from Table 1 (pit bull-type + Rottweiler / purebreds and crossbreds = 120 fatalities of 238 total or "just over half"), as it's more comprehensive than the limited 2-year stat (1997-1998) referenced in the discussion section of the study.

2) Quote updated to draw from the study's conclusions section (page 1) rather than the discussion section, as the conclusions carry more weight than the exploratory discussion. Note: The revision's quote is the first sentence from the conclusions section. There are additional findings/quotes that could be added from the study's results and conclusions sections.

Note: My edit yesterday was rightfully reverted as I claimed that the current quote wasn't in the study, that was my error - it is in the study's discussion section, as mentioned above. However, I still think the article would be improved with the revision I'm proposing here, by updating the stat to the full 20-year stat (vs. the 2-year stat) and a quote from the study's conclusion section (vs. the discussion section).

@Traumnovelle Seeking your feedback on this as well, since you're a frequent editor here.

Thanks. JackMtnSun (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, that's a good analysis of the source, and I agree with the proposed change. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense to highlight 2 years when the study was over 20 years. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC)