Talk:American Staffordshire Terrier/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about American Staffordshire Terrier. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

ATTS test

The ATTS test results summarized by breed CANNOT be used to properly compare different breeds. This is because of something called self-selection bias which is a common problem but it seems that no one here is aware of this. Basically, the variable of interest, temperament, will act on the probability of someone voluntarily bringing their animal in for a paid assessment. It should be obvious that no one will pay to have their suspicions confirmed that their dog has a poor temperament. The president of the ATTS org admits as much when he states that much less than 1% of animals flunk due to aggression, while we know that aggression is more common than this in the general dog population. Further, the test is breed specific, so different breeds are held to different standards. Lastly, the test was devised for schutzhund work evaluation and so it common for a dog to flunk due to timidity.

If you do not see how what I have wrote calls for the removal of the ATTS test mention, then you are horribly biased or cognitively deficient and should opt out of any work on this page or others. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The ATTS is the best psychological test what we had for the moment to test dogs. Your arguments are very weak since testing standard applies to every dog.

What you are tripping up over is that the ATTS test can be PERFECTLY valid for an individual dog AND simultaneously the breed summaries can be biased and therefore not of use in comparing two or more breeds. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that below you take me to task for what should be common sense and also for what should be common knowledge about the ATTS test (if you are to use this data source as you would like), but above you feel entitled to make claims that cannot stand on their own and you do not offer a shred of evidence. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

With all DUE respect, you are not qualified to judge the strength of an argument. I can grant you that the ATTS test is the BEST test of temperament. It still does not follow that it can be used to compare breeds. I know this will be hard for you to take because it removes a linchpin of certain advocacy movements. The reason you cannot use it to compare breeds is that there is no sampling design to ensure a representative, random sample. Instead, the sample is nearly 100% guaranteed to be biased for EVERY BREED based upon simple deduction. Why? It is like testing the IQ of a town by asking people to come in for a free test. Do you think below average people will pay for this test or even be as likely to be aware of it? No. Please look up self-selection bias, it is very real and has been acknowledged for generations as a severe liability in these types of data analysis scenarios. Even though all breeds will have biased pass rates, the bias will vary based upon breed. The more placid breeds will likely be less biased as less of a filter is applied by owners in regards to entry. Please seriously mull over what I have written it is plain as day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias

"while we know that aggression is more common than this in the general dog population" Your sources for this statement? Don't forget this is an encyclopedia.

Based upon common sense. If only handful of dogs of thousands (a fraction of 1%) flunk for stranger aggression we know something is awry. Why? Because common experience tells us that a much higher fraction of dogs in general are aggressive toward strangers. What I stated here and above to which you replied is meant to highlight what I said about self-selection bias being at work. It is plainly obvious.

"Further, the test is breed specific, so different breeds are held to different standards" that's not true, provide us a source for your statement !

The ATTS test homepage itself has this pdf which shows this.

http://atts.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ATTS_Testers_Guide.pdf

Further, there was VERY specific reference to this on .html pages on the ATTS site. They have been removed because this knowledge of the test was being used to show why the test was being inappropriately applied to compare breeds. Why would the ATTS care? There bread and butter is the APBT and AmStaff breed community. Please look at this first page http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/ and see the relative numbers. More APBTs than labrador retrievers, the most popular breed in the US, have been tested. Nearly as many AmStaffies have been tested as labs. Members of the pit bull breed group community use this test as breed rehab. They often schedule testing days and actively encourage those with dogs sure to pass to come. This is all documented in pit bull forums. So, the not only is self-selection bias of the usual type present, but the test is actively being GAMED for the breed communities pleasure. You will now ask for proof it is being gamed but this is found in pit bull forums which require passwords to view. I'm sure you belong to a few, as do others who research your culture. Please search what I say and prove it to yourself.

Please face it. You know very little about this test and data analysis.

" Basically, the variable of interest, temperament, will act on the probability of someone voluntarily bringing their animal in for a paid assessment" Your own speculations, NOT facts.k84m97 (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is called common sense, which you are purposefully being obtuse toward. Someone who is making a truth claim using a sample from a population has the burden of proof upon them to show that the sample is representative of the population of interest. You have not done this or addressed the very real concerns any competent data analyst would have. You have not been formally trained in data analysis, obviously, and now you are arguing with someone (me) with years of training in that area. If someone was trying to analyze a culture in some anthropology study and sampled the population in the way you have all someone would need to do is politely raise their hand and say "you have not taken into account the obvious and strong possibility of self-selection bias, therefore your results cannot be trusted".

I just read on your profile K8 that you are a recent changes patroller. What a horrible joke that you would have any such responsibility for an article like this. You state in your profile that you have owned APBTs and AmStaffs for 15 years. YOU SHOULD THEREFORE RECUSE YOURSELF FROM THIS ARTICLE. YOU HAVE NOT LEARNED TO QUESTION YOURSELF AROUND ISSUES LIKE THIS.

"common sense" is subjective and not objective. As I have no experience as a data analyst you have no the experience of a Historian (me). This is an encyclopedia and for every statement you need a reliable source to prove it's authenticity. This site is not the right place for hate speeches made by somebody from Fairmont, West Virginia. Come with statements made by ASPCA, the American Veterinary Medical Association, DEFRA. Those are the competent organizations to comment on this issue.k84m97 (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hate speech? Calling out my IP address location for some purpose? Please. As I said, YOU and others are making a truth claim regarding ATTS summaries by breed. Therefore, it is up to you to insure that the sampling is appropriate to back up your truth claim. YOU HAVE NOT DONE THIS. I can show you a VERY SIMPLE mechanism that shows that the sample is highly unlikely to be representative and that no care has been taken to ensure your statistics will be accurate. You don't care because the ATTS statistics back up your opinion. I assure you that when encyclopedists sit around and bring up a data source, if it is obviously inappropriate due to basic principles, then they simply throw it out and do not insist upon finding an outside source showing it is wrong. Otherwise, EVERY data set would a prior be acceptable until proved not acceptable by someone specifically mentioning it. As far as common sense being subjective, basic principles of logic is what this is about. If you think that is subjective too, then no wonder you feel justified as using a wiki entry as your soapbox. If the AVMA or others rely upon ATTS statistics to judge breeds, then they are incorrect based upon simple principles. You have simply posted what the ATTS has on their site in terms of breed summaries. The ATTS is not an open society for dog experts to mull over facts. They are a corporation that puts on tests for pay. None of their work is peer-reviewed.

Dear Anonymus, should we rely on your "common sense" rather than on American Veterinary Medical Association, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, SPCA and DEFRA ? Maybe it is because I am German but I can see just lack of common sense here. Show us some reliable sources what can prove the credibility of your statements. These should be from a national organization and not from a web blog. You stated that Temperament tests are not reliable because people bring dogs there voluntary and nobody will test an aggressive dog. Well not just Amstaffs are brought there voluntary, every breed is there voluntary and as you wrote no one will bring an aggressive dog, thus dogs are there for the same issue and you can compare their results.k84m97 (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry dear sir/madam, that is not the way self-selection bias works. If it did, then it would be far less of a concern. You are making an argument from ignorance. You do not (want?) to understand the process so you are thinking it does not function as I stated. I will return to this in a moment. First, we are talking about the ATTS, which is a for profit corporation. That is whose statistics you are citing. You are not citing the AVMA or others, so their mention is what we call a red herring (something thrown in for effect when it is superfluous to the discussion). Imagine that all breed owners have the same relationship between their self-perception of their dog's temperament and their probability of bringing in their dog for testing. There will also be a random component as we are dealing with probabilities. Now, self-selection bias means that some amount of the "cream" is skimmed of each breed, somewhat randomly, and this "cream" will be of different "thicknesses" given the average temperament of the breed and the distribution around the average. You cannot compare two "whole milks" based upon the quality of the "cream" they give off. That is common sense. Plus, the pit bull community actively uses this test as part of their breed rehabilitation. So, the pit bull "cream" will be the "cream of the cream". Here are links where pit bull afficionados discuss "gaming" the ATTS statistics for their benefit.

http://www.pitbulltalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=22678&p=236893&hilit=atts#p236893

http://www.pitbulltalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4827&p=66101&hilit=atts#p66101

http://www.pitbullforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=11253&sid=0df6513

http://pbsmiles.org/pbsmiles/upload/showthread.php?t=34010

http://thetruthaboutpitbulls.blogspot.com/2010/08/there-are-three-kinds-of-lies-lies.html

There are many more but you must be a forum member to view them.

Lastly, you do not address the fact that the ATTS admits that their test is breed specific and so different breeds have different criteria of judgement. Please see the .pdf I pasted above. Further, the test is usually failed for timidity. The test was originally created to judge dogs for their suitability as police/protection animals and not for use as companions.

to the above point http://www.pitbulltalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=21055&p=218814&hilit=atts#p218814

http://www.pitbulltalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=15807&hilit=atts&start=20

http://www.pitbulltalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16457

http://www.pitbulltalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=15807&hilit=atts&start=20 — Preceding ~~wvguy8258

read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRN#American_Staffordshire_Terrier Wvguy8258 (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As indicated by DRN now the source is from a specialty magazine in conformation with the house of rules.k84m97 (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I wrote this at the DRN: " The moderator specifically wrote " The ATTS results should not, therefore, be included in the article unless reported in a reliable source of the type which would look at their work with a critical, professional eye, such as a peer-reviewed scientific journal." The website : http://www.dogsincanada.com/american-staffordshire-terrier-fact-or-fallacy that k84m87 points toward in the discussion section to justify inclusion of the ATTS stats is a magazine that is now only available in online form and was only available in print sporadically before, relying upon their online readership. This is not remotely similar to a "peer-reviewed scientific journal", as mentioned, that would be capable to transparently evaluate the weight of any evidence. I therefore suggest that this source does not meet stated standards and mention of the ATTS stats should be removed until such time that a legitimate reference materializes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvguy8258 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Same conclusion about Temperament tests in Scot E. Dowd Ph.D., Assessment of Canine Temperament in Relation to Breed Groups, Matrix Canine Research Institute. Shallowater, TX 79363.Assessment of Canine Temperament in Relation to Breed Groups k84m97 (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? Why do you refuse to understand what a peer-reviewed scientific journal is? It is not a well known dog fancier magazine. It is not a self-published paper from a guy with a website. And you saying I practice hate speech against dog breeds is a real dozy. I won't even discuss that. It is like taking seriously people's claims that people judging pit bulls is like racism. It is a joke. Wvguy8258 (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

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 k84m97 (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Please read the wiki entries for peer-reviewed, scholarly peer review, and scientific journal for clarification. Wvguy8258 (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Dowd loses all credibility when he starts with comparing people judging dog breeds to racial profiling in humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvguy8258 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll say it is, wait for other users to decide this.k84m97 (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright. A bit of info. Googling the Matrix research inst. leads to their home page, where they are asking for paypal donations directly from the general population. They state they have experts, but don't list them. Looking here http://www.canineresearch.net/index-3.html it is obvious that their research is agenda-driven and targeted to bully breed owners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvguy8258 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Further, the author of the article from Matrix also runs his own pit bull university at http://www.ukcpitbull.com/edu2/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=2 . I'm sorry if I find this odd behavior from a scientist meant to dispassionately evaluate the information. He does not seem to realize the quite real phenomena that I have mentioned that invalidate his results. Wvguy8258 (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

biased

This article is even worse than the American Pit Bull Terrier article in terms of appearing to be a soapbox. I did not think this was possible. We would be better with no article than one like this that is basically a copy-paste from pit bull advocacy organizations or at best cherry picking. I do not have to provide much evidence for this to a disinterested party, as it is obvious. Read a few other breed descriptions from non-controversial breeds and you will see the difference. An online encyclopedia is not the place to try to rehabilitate public opinion of a breed. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

breed specific legislation section

Would it be appropriate to include organizations in favor of breed specific legislation? They do exist in spite of no mention. If they cannot then I worry about POV issues. Wvguy8258 (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Wvguy8258 as I said I really appreciate the work you have done on the temperament section. As it was agreed on the DRN the section was balanced. I removed your recent edit because of POV, too much information on that section which I'm sure will be expanded by the other side and will end up again at DRN, furthermore the APBTs can't be registered as Amstaffs since 1970, and Amstaffs can't be registered as APBTs since 2007. You cold include it in the Dog attack article if you use your reference correctly. Thank you very much for your understanding.Citizen of the USA (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit bumfuzzled how it is NPOV to include orgs against BSL but not NPOV to include those that are not. Wvguy8258 (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In this case I will expand it about the breed being nanny dog. Of course with proper sources according to wkirule.62.178.210.100 (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You will be able to find a published source stating this. However, you will not find a historic reference to the breed being called nanny dog or anything similar from the time period for which the claim is being made. That is because the nanny dog claim was invented in the last several decades by people involved with staffies. There are no historic references to it, although some people that write books assert it as fact. Prove me wrong. Find a reference to them being nanny dogs that does not simply come from a pit bull book writer stating it. Wvguy8258 (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My source will be an encyclopedia by a reputable publisher, thus acceptable on Wikipedia62.178.210.100 (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And this is why we can't have nice things, like an accurate wikipedia. I'm sure the encyclopedia of dogs or whatever will simply state it. If you follow the references all the way back, there is literally nothing there that would make some believe it to be true. It was simply made up. Wvguy8258 (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is just fine as it is. Stop pushing POVs both of you. The article should't become an advertising page for or against the breed. Now it's a fine balanced article. Leave it.Citizen of the USA (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Need new picture!

disregarding the fact that the breed standard favors uncropped ears, its a super bad picture. it's blurry. the dog looks like it is being choked. are there seriously no other usable pictures of am staffs? really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.80.152 (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The picture is most definately an American Staffordshire Terrier, Not a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, please know what you are talking about before you post!!! Also, AmStaff's, raised in a loving enviroment are some of the most people friendly, protective dogs around. I've owned several dogs of various breeds, as well as an AmStaff for 14 years. The AmStaff never bit anyone and was by far my families favorite. It's a shame Pit Bulls have been abused and set loose into residential communities where inocent children have been injured. It is naive and narrow minded to think that a Lab or Shepard systematically abused for years would not act the same. It's a pity for the Pit Bulls and even more for the Am Staffs who are painted with the same bigotted brush. You should be ashamed of yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.149.210 (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not an AmStaff, its' a Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Different dog. (comment written by ?)

The origin of the American Staffordshire Terrier breed was in England; not U.S. History needs to be researched and verified.--Kate1032 23:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC) The name "American" was not added to Staffordshire Terrier until the latter 20th Century, in the U.S. --Kate1032 23:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Removed a link to the APBT (American Pit Bull Terrier) because it is not an informational direct link regarding the AmStaff. The link should be on an APBT Wikipedia web page if one exists.--Kate1032 00:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Removed dead links.--Kate1032 00:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Any citation for "Jake the Dog"?--Kate1032 01:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Removed "Tiny" the dog from the Black Dog film reference as "Tiny" was an APBT (American Pit Bull Terrier).--Kate1032 01:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)The "APPEARANCE" section needs to be re-written--Kate1032 01:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation regarding some films; Library of Congress Motion Pictures - American Memory series--Kate1032 10:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

ATTS comparisons

The ATTS is scored by breed specific standards and thus cannot be used to compare breeds. Any comparison between breeds is misleading as test results reflect as consistency with the ATTS standards for that breed, not relative behaviour between breeds.

"Aggression here is checked against the breed standard and the dog’s training. A schutzhund trained dog lunging at the stranger is allowed, but if an untrained Siberian husky does the same, it may fail."^[1] Anonopotamous 19:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desildorf (talk • contribs)

There war a long discussion on the talk page about this. Please see the discussion above and if you would suggest modifications discuss it first on the talk page or refer to the DNR. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.104.4.129 (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed "Pit Bull" as a nickname

The American Staffordshire Terrier is NOT nicknamed "pitbull". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.173.82 (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

However it is one of the 3 breeds commonly referred to as a pit bull.12.106.251.2 (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

People always refer to American Staffordshires as "pitbulls". Whether this is a misnomer or not, I think, is where the clarification could be made. In popular culture outside of dog breeders, the AKC, etc., I don't think there is a debate that 9 out of 10 people off the street will answer "Pitbull" if you show them a picture of an AmStaff and ask "What kind of dog is this?"

Agreed. Keytud (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

After a recent killing of a toddler, even the police were getting politically correct: '"Authorities originally referred to the dog involved as a "Pit Bull", but dropped that description Thursday, referring to it as an "American Staffordshire Terrier mix". Orthotox (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this breed is one of several that people call pit bulls. This omission is an obvious reflection of bias on the part of editors who like the breed. It should be added back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.66.122 (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we just delete all ATTS post at will?

From everything I have read on all the debates on the ATTS information is the information is just a company stating its opinion and is not verifiable or relevant.

It seems every moderator has concluded this, yet the information keeps getting reposted.

So am I correct that the ATTS information is suppose to removed from this and every website unless the information has been validated?Mantion (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It should be deleted but the folks that reflexively defend this breed are brainwashed. The ATTS helps their case, so for them it must be included. They have zero intellectual honesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.127.153.152 (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The sourse is not taken from ATTS directly, in line with Wikipedia's rules it is quoted from a peer reviewed journal; "Schaffner, Joan (2009) A lawyer's guide to dangerous dog issues. Chicago, American Bar Association. ISBN 9781604425529" published by the American Bar Association.193.104.4.129 (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That is not a peer-reviewed source, that is a book. It is also misrepresenting the test. Any statements comparing ATTS scores between breeds are misleading. The ATTS using breed specific standards and thus breeds cannot be compared. This needs to stop. Anonopotamous 00:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desildorf (talk • contribs)

Please go to DNR as the current version the result of a very long discussion. See above.212.186.170.67 (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed that discussion. That closed discussion failed to identify 1) that the current source is unreliable, as it is from a lawyer written in a book that has not been subjected to peer-review 2) comparison of breed values for the ATTS is original research. The ATTS measures dogs against breed standards, extrapolating those results between breeds is both original research and is scientifically invalid Anonopotamous 00:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Original research cannot be quoted directly. Thus the information is provided by a reputable publisher: American Bar Association which The ABA's most important stated activities are the setting of academic standards for law schools, and the formulation of model ethical codes related to the legal profession.,according to wikipedia.193.104.4.129 (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Then literally everything about the ATTS needs to be removed except for the grain of salt quote because everything else is original research. Furthermore quoting a book by a lawyer, evaluating an animal behavioral test is absurd. It is very easy to see that the author of the book, being a non-expert, does not understand that statistical foundations of the ATTS Anonopotamous 21:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desildorf (talk • contribs)

The ATTS cannot be used to compare breeds of dogs

I have attempt to go to the mediation group, however it was bumped back down as there has not been sufficient discussion of this matter here.

When the ATTS is performed "Aggression here is checked against the breed standard and the dog’s training. A schutzhund trained dog lunging at the stranger is allowed, but if an untrained Siberian husky does the same, it may fail."^[2]. As each breed is required to meet a different standard, comparing scores between breeds cannot be done.

Does anyone have reason why this is not true? If not, all mention of the ATTS must be removed, as it has from all of the other pitbul breed pages.

With respect, the current issue is different then evaluating the quality of the ATTS quote source. Anonopotamous 21:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desildorf (talk • contribs)

the cureent content is the result of a consensus of a lenghty debate. You are removing it over and over withouth having any user to agree with you. Original research cannot be quoted directly, thus the information was taken from a book published by a reputable publisher, the American Bar Association, in line with wikipedia's policy.86.124.14.200 (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me the majority of the people correctly pointed out that the ATTS "statistics" is simply the opinion of one organization. The Book publishing the information merely mentions the opinion, it does not verify nor validate the information. This debate has raged on for some time, in each time the ATTS opinion has been shown as original research and or invalid. Do we need to have more moderators? This is getting very silly and is lowering the quality of the article.Mantion (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

yes, we need more moderators as the edits made by you two (same person?) resums to "dangerous dogs" and "fatal dog attacks" which seems to be POW86.124.0.242 (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the edit is simply removing information that is not peer-reviewed and is scientifically invalid. You have to understand that. Using the ATTS to compare breeds is statistically impossible. This is not advocating a position that pitbulls are dangerous dogs it is simply advocating the correct opinion that the ATTS, a test in which individual dogs are compared to a breed standard, cannot be used to compare animals of different breeds. You can find literally no reason why this is not true. All of the test preceding the quote, about what the ATTS is etc is not backed up by the quote and does not have a source. The primary source references 3 breeds that scored lower than pitts, which has somehow been turned into pitbulls scoring "ATTS breed statistics show that American Staffordshire Terriers consistently score above average for all breeds tested". This is completely absurd. That actual validity of the ATTS has not been discussed, and somehow it has been missed that everything but the quote is contradicted by the quote (which is itself invalid) Anonopotamous 22:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desildorf (talk • contribs)

however Wikipedia's policy allows to include information from a reputable publisher, and the American Bar Assoziation qualifies as one. You are removing content without discussing it with other users thus pushing POV. It doesnt matter what's your opinion about ATTS or the ABA as the ABA qualifies as a reputable publisher86.123.51.40 (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The american bar association is not a reputable publisher of scientific information on canine behaviour. You don't seem to understand what is going on here. The ABA did not write this, someone did and then the ABA published it. It would be similar to taking a quote from a work of fiction and saying while Penguin Books is a reputable publisher of literature reviews Anonopotamous 03:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desildorf (talk • contribs)

American Bar Association's "most important stated activities are the setting of academic standards for law schools, and the formulation of model ethical codes related to the legal profession." Seems quite reputable to me. Furthermore your statement that "he ABA did not write this, someone did and then the ABA published it" is false since that is an analysis of the issue, an analysis that can be used in court rooms:"he Lawyer's Guide to Dangerous Dog Issues" by Joan E. Schaffner". I assume you didn't read the book, nor the discussions o this talk page since the above mentioned book was considered to be a a source in line with wikipedia's rules.212.186.170.84 (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The truth isn't democratic. Science is not democratic. Effectively the entire article on reliable sources undermines its use as a source. The author is not an expert on animal behaviour or science. The work is a book which has not been subjected to peer-review. The reference is a secondary source by a non-expert who is relying on something that is self-published (the ATTS). The source is garbage. The previous discussion is irrelevant as people are making basic scientific mistakes and clearly have not read the things they are siting (ie Duffy was not a online only survey). Anonopotamous 00:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desildorf (talk • contribs)

Duffy study

This online owner assessed survey states "Both the breed club and online samples will have been subject to self-selection bias that may have influenced the current findings" it also states "However, dog owner reports have a greater potential for subjective bias compared to more objective behavioral observations" and "Availability of the survey then spread via word of mouth. This sample of dog owners is therefore self-selected which we note as a potential source of bias. Breed designations are based entirely upon owner assertions." Additionally the data is of "pit bulls" described as "a Includes American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers." I am not sure the data, survey or results are applicable to the American Staffordshire Terrier, as many believe that the American Pit Bull Terrier is a different breed. According to this study of online surveys Pitbulls showed twice the level (22% vs 10.7% of all dogs) of serious aggression (Snaps, bites or attempts to bite) toward unfamiliar dogs. It also had much higher level serious aggression towards stranger and dog rivalry and higher levels of owner directed serious aggression. Should information about serious aggression (biting) be included or just aggression which includes things like barking? Mantion (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Read the actual study. It is absolutely not an online only survey. Anonopotamous 00:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

2.2. Participants

2.2.1. Breed club sample

Study participants consisted of members of 11 American Kennel Club (AKC) recognized national breed clubs (see Serpell and Hsu, 2005 for details). C-BARQ questionnaires were distributed to breed club members by ordinary mail together with an explanatory letter, and a pre-paid return envelope. In an effort to ‘randomize’ the samples, recipients from most of the clubs were selected from either the first or last 300 members listed alphabetically in each club's membership directory. The Labrador Retriever Club elected to distribute the C-BARQ to its own members, and sent questionnaires to the first 488 members listed alphabetically in its directory. The English Springer Spaniel Field Trial Association also chose to distribute the C-BARQ: all 187 members with field (working)-bred Spaniels were sent questionnaires, and the Trinity College (Dublin, Ireland) online random number generator (http://random.org/) was used as the basis for sampling 300 out of a total of 367 members with conformation (show)-bred Spaniels. In addition to the C-BARQ assessments, information was also collected on each dog's age, sex and neuter status. For the Labrador and English Springer Spaniel breeds, owners were also asked to state whether the dog was field or conformation (show)-bred, if known.

To ensure statistical independence, each respondent was asked to assess only one dog, preferably one that was well known, that was at least 1 year old at the time of assessment in order to reduce maturational effects (Serpell and Jagoe, 1995).

2.2.2. Online sample

Beginning in April 2006, free access to an online version of the C-BARQ (http://www.vet.upenn.edu/cbarq) became available to pet owners. The online survey was advertised via an article in the newsmagazine of the Veterinary Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, USA (http://www.vet.upenn.edu/bellwether/v64/article10.shtml) and by notices sent to Philadelphia-area veterinary clinics and the top 20 USA breed clubs based on AKC registrations. Availability of the survey then spread via word of mouth. This sample of dog owners is therefore self-selected which we note as a potential source of bias. Breed designations are based entirely upon owner assertions.

Owners were permitted to complete questionnaires for as many dogs as they wished. However, for data analysis we used a random number generator (available as part of the statistics software, SPSS 15.0, SPSS, Inc.) to randomly select only one dog per owner to ensure statistical independence. Only breeds for which at least 45 dogs were surveyed were included in analyses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desildorf (talk • contribs) 00:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I clearly did read the study, did you miss the fact that the only data about pitbull type dogs were from owners who filled out a survey? That said if the article is going to include the data derived from the online survey should it also include information about serious aggression? Would the readers benefit from knowing the finding related to snapping and biting?Mantion (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As this article is about the American Staffordshire Terrier the study should not be included here as it is refers to the pitbull, a generic term to describe medium sized dogs with above average musculature.212.186.170.84 (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sitting dogs.

We dont use sitting dogs in the lead picture. The sitting dog picture is not a good picture of the breed. Eyes can't be seen, and because the dog is sitting, it doesn't shows much of the dog breed’s characteristic features, and - it is kind of a blurry picture. The bacground is blurry and the dog is not sharp, compared to the other picture. Hafspajen (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer the sitting dog. Its features are characteristic of the breed while the one proposed has many faults pointed out by the breed standard also included as a reference in this article (FCI breed standard). However it could be also included bellow.

Furthermore I consider that it would worth mentioning bellow the picture of the Black and Tan dog that this color combination is not accepted by the breed standard. Another point would be, that all the new pictures added, show dogs without cropped ears which might be the case in some European countries (as far as I know in Northern Europe) but not at all in the rest of the world. In the US it is almost impossible to win a dog show with an amstaff which has un cropped ears. Thank You for your kind consideration Citizen of the USA (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that WAS a point, of course, mentioning bellow the picture of the Black and Tan dog that this color combination is not accepted by the breed standard. Maybe we should just remove it. Removed. Hafspajen (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What faults do you mean? Hafspajen (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hafspajen thank you for replying. I don't think we should remove the picture with the black&tan dog, it is good that you included it as they do exists. It can be informative to readers. Just mention somewhere that this combination is not accepted. Would it be a section about colors too much? As there also are those which has more white than 80% (not acceptable), those with light eyes or brown nose. All of these are not in line with the standard but still popular amongst people. Let me know what do you thinkCitizen of the USA (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No, on the contrary, it would be very appropiate with a section about colors. Also to mention what you just said, about the US dog shows, where it is almost impossible to win a dog show with an amstaff which has un cropped ears. You are right. But for the lead, if it has to be this dog, I would prefer this ones. Hafspajen (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer this one, if it has to be this dog

Faults like too deep stop, light eyes (should be discouraged), curvy tail, atypical head. Furthermore I am afraid that beside European readers not many people would recognize the breed with un-cropped ears. Years ago I often frequented dog shows and its true that in Europe ears and tails are untouched, but in the US for example its a quite rare phenomenon.RgdsCitizen of the USA (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Same time edit ;-) I would prefer the old one since I know the dog from dog magazines and books. If I'm recalling it correctly it's a European champion from the Fraja's line. But since the English wiki has readers from all around the world, it would be a good idea to have on the front also a picture with a dog with natural ears, side shoot. Again, I don't know if we can merge two images with Photoshop ?Citizen of the USA (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it, gosh. Can we use the standing picture of this dog, please? Actually we prefer in dog articles dogs standing from the side, but there are no real good pictures about this breed. No pictures with a dog with natural ears, side shoot. Or cropped ears. Hafspajen (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not a show position but I would agree. However I'm almost sure somebody will replace it soon. I still have some acquaintances at Staffordshire Terrier Club of America and will ask for some pictures but it can take some time. Thank you for your constructive contributions Hafspajen. Citizen of the USA (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, if Staffordshire Terrier Club of America will be nice enough to donate som of their pictures for the article, that would be an excellent solution. A second thought - you said you know that dog picture from dog magazines and books. That is pretty bad, if the image is not free. In that case it should be removed immediately. Hafspajen (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

'I checked the AKC, and it recomends distinct stop; AKC I don't think this dog has a much too pronounced stop, it is just the shadow in the picture that makes it look like that. But eyes should be dark and round, so true this dogs eyes are a bit light. Hafspajen (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I would preffer the sitting one193.104.4.129 (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Low quality pictures

This article is flooded with low quality pictures. This B; replaced the one to the left, A. Nothing is visible in this picture, the nose is from the front and blurry, eyes just behind nose. Picture a was the only decent picture we had in this article, now it is removed too. And what Brindle markings? Can't notice any. Hafspajen (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 I replaced the wrong image I was referring to. If this discussion was started due to my revert, you might want to remove it. Just saying. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, then we quite agree on this topic. Sorry to mess it up. As removing it, I would rather leave it. May come other pictures with same issue. Hafspajen (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Same pic appears as Staffordshire and Pit Bull.

The main pic we have here as female American Staffordshire Terrier also appears on the American Pitbull Terrier page as an example of that breed. I have not seen either breeds in person so I do not know which one it actually is. If someone knows maybe they can correct the error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.128.13 (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Just came across this, agreed, infobox image is a Pitbull not Amstaff, changing. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Staffordshire Terrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Lack of Information

In comparison to other dog breed pages, this dog breed has little information about it. I think a lot more information should be added about the temperament of the breed. FeelsYikesMan (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The link to the IBT or ISBT is not working due to bias. The IBT is smaller than the AST as it measures only 18 inches at the shoulder and has a slightly different shaped head. The personalities are however similar and neither shows extreme dog aggression like the APBT.

On Temperament:

Other language pages on Wikipedia mention big problems with dog temperaments and a tendency to develop aggression towards other dogs. It is said that inexperienced dog owners should not get this breed of dog. This is almost the opposite of what the English language page says about this dog's temperament which is more like a commercial oneliner by a party with a vested interest. This should be checked and probably altered. 82.217.243.236 (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The article is cited to reliable sources, including reputable kennel clubs/registries world-wide. We include what reliable sources have stated about the breed's temperament, all of which is cited to reliable sources. WP:Extraordinary claims must be cited to multiple high quality reliable sources, so if you believe something in the article needs to be added, updated or altered, please include links to the sources you intend to cite for such claims, and we are happy to discuss it here. The article does acknowledge the fact that breed-specific legislation and restrictions exist along with the advocacies that support such actions, which is why we have a section on it. Atsme 💬 📧 13:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be error under history

Seems like possible error in history section. 2nd to last paragraph says American Standard is known for "plumbing" and then mentions Kohler, Inc.

These are toilet manufacturers. A Walk In The DogPark (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The section 'Breed Specific Legislation’ is mostly worthless

This text: “ Breed Specific Legislation has been enacted in various states in the United States, France, Australia,[15] Canada,[16] Ireland,[17] Turkey,[18] and the United Kingdom." seems to me to be generic. For example, there is no breed specific legislation that I can find in Australia which mentions AmStaffs. I hesitate to remove the sentence, but it is, I believe, just generic stuff. And the rest of the section is so general as to be almost worthless. So ither than a throwaway warning, perhaps, it should all go, as it is off putting to readers and inaccurate in the process. Boscaswell talk 09:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGL-122

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2023 and 9 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mmaley2 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mmaley2 (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Addressing Controversial Issues Fairly

Some key facts need to be addressed on this page. First, we need to make clear that American Staffordshire Terriers can be dangerous, without saying that they cannot also be loving and kind. Both can be true. Secondly, it needs to be clear that this dog is commonly considered a pit bull type of dog. These facts are especially important to users who rely on Wikipedia for encyclopedic accuracy. WP:NPOV requires that we provide a balanced view. I am asking that the page be semi-protected as it seems as if any attempt to address attacks where AmStaffs have clearly been identified have been removed.

01:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC) Veritas Aeterna (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

No, you need to read WP:RS. Please, please - stay away with the pit bull crap.These are registered purebred dogs and they are not "pit bulls". We avoid citing and quoting tertiary sources. If you are here on a mission to paint all terrier x bulldog breeds with a wide paint brush in the color of dangerous, biters, etc., just move along. Each dog is different, and respond to their respective environments and level of training. Any untrained dog can bite and pose a danger and it doesn't matter what breed. News media likes the attention they get when they use certain terms like pit bull. Atsme 💬 📧 01:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I know this is controversial. These dogs are a kind of pit bull, I am sorry. The examples I provided specifically call out that the dogs in the attack were American Staffordshire Terriers in each news article I have provided. Encyclopedia Britannica is authoritative.

Much of what you are saying echoes the propaganda espoused by the pit bull lobby.

"I am glad to add: "(Generalizations about dog breeds are well established and widely accepted, but individual dogs may differ in behaviour from others of their breed.)", which is also part of the Encyclopedia Britannica article.

01:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC) Veritas Aeterna (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Dogs, and dog experts/professionals watch these articles, myself included. You need to get off Britannica because it is considered marginally reliable, and we don't use marginally RS for controversial material. Let's not get into an edit war. Much of what you're saying echos the propaganda of BSL advocates, and pit bull haters. We go through this all the time, and they end up getting blocked. We have Project Dog to help people learn that purebred dog breeds that are recognized by reputable registries are not the crossbreeds and mongrels called pit bulls that are used in illegal clandestine dog fighting, or are also unlikely to be the dogs identified by sight. I don't have time to educate every single editor who wants to make these breeds controversial when there are so many variables. The article already addresses the topic so unless you're doing something to improve the article, please do not add controversial material sourced to Britannica. Atsme 💬 📧 02:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Veritas Aeterna, on second thought, I just read that paragraph and was appalled over the incidents that were included in that section. It doesn't belong in that section, because isolated incidents are not representative of the breed, especially when the breed is identified based only on sight, which has a high percentage of inaccuracy. Those incidents really shouldn't be included in this article at all. This article is about show dogs and family pets, not dogs that were improperly trained to be aggressive. Dogs like that come in all breeds. I don't have the time tonight to fix it, but would very much appreciate your help and working with you in getting this article neutral and far more accurate than it is now. Atsme 💬 📧 02:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the more civil replies, some of the earlier comments sound a bit like WP:OWN. I think these cases need to appear somewhere in the article. Prospective owners need to know these dogs have the potential to be dangerous and thus are suited for more experienced dog owners.

Also, the purebred dogs may be somewhat different than Rescue dogs that are labeled, correctly or not, American Staffordshire Terrier. The article also needs to address those potential owners, too, who are less knowledgeable. I have heard of cases where AmStaffs were adopted and then only later did they find out that colloquially they are considered a kind of pit bull.

I am open to moving the cases to a section such as Controversy. But they need to be somewhere.

I am open to working with you on this. We can leave aside the issue as to whether it is always the owner or not—perhaps agreeing to disagree there. People just need to be aware of the danger. It can be truly, truly horrendous.

The third case, the one in Sweden, was added by an anonymous user. So, I just wanted to point out that this may be an unpopular view—that the dogs can be very dangerous—but it is still needs to represented.

07:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC) Veritas Aeterna (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. Text tends to come across matter-of-factly, and my participation here is certainly not OWN because prior to my recent 2 reverts, I have only made 11 edits to this article over the years, and they involved fixing what vandals had done, a few citation updates/fixes, and I added a little material a while back. I do watch the dog articles as a member of Project Dogs but we welcome good writing, copy editing, and accurate updates. The problems we encounter most often are born of ignorance and fear, in the pragmatic sense, and we get more than our share of BSL advocates, pit bull haters, and people who think everything is a pit bull when they know very little about dog breeds or dog ownership beyond having a family pet. I would very much appreciate, and highly recommend, you reading the following: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive 15#Critical updates about phenotypes, genetics and selective breeding. Science has yet to substantially prove the claims that temperament (not behavioral traits) is inherited (we should probably change that section header); therefore, adding contentious or controversial material relative to temperament in our registered dog breed articles requires updated, top quality, science-based sources, and a good understanding of how a dog's temperament is established. Here is a classic example of a "scientific paper" that contains inaccuracies:

The most frequently reported dog breeds who had bitten (and were not classified as mixed) were Pit Bull (27.2%), German Shepherd (10.5%), Labrador Retriever (7.2%), Boxer (4.6%), Rottweiler (3.9%), Beagle (3.3%), Jack Russell (2.9%), Bulldog (2.9%), Chihuahua (2.6%), Husky (2.3%), Golden Retriever (2.3%), Dachshund (2.2%), Mastiff (1.9%), Shih-tzu (1.9%), Poodle (1.6%), and Cocker Spaniel (1.5%). Eight additional breeds each representing <1.5% of bites were also identified (Yorkshire Terrier, Great Dane, Australian Shepherd, Doberman, Boston Terrier, Akita, Collie).30 Though these studies identified dog breeds involved in bite injuries, it is difficult to draw conclusions on the involvement of specific breeds in pediatric dog bites as the overall underlying dog population is not available for comparison, and breed stratification is not possible.

The first sentence is misinformation because a pit bull is a ubiquitous term, not a breed, and most dogs identified as pit bulls are mixed breeds. For centuries, high level, experienced dog trainers and breeders already knew temperament, which directly affects behavior, is highly influenced by environment and training. Science is just now getting around to validating it. Most of the reports about pit bulls and the naming of breeds by sight ID are anecdotal and most often these dogs are misidentified. Unless a report provides significant data that the dog was indeed a specific breed of dog, not a mongrel or mixed breed, (DNA confirmed registration papers), and the only proof is (a) a visual ID by terrified witnesses, (b) owners who purchased their dogs from a puppy mill or SPCA, and the like, and (c) have no registration papers, then we do not include that material in the article. News media is the worst source for reporting dog bites, and that is why the CDC stopped including breed names in their dog bite/fatality statistics. Every mixed breed dog that bites a person or another dog tends to be labeled pit bull, so please consider what has already been discussed and agreed upon. Verifiable facts that are supported by real science are what speak loudest. Atsme 💬 📧 18:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I read the paper. I wish she had tracked behaviors more related to the prey-drive, e.g., the bite-shake-hold-on pattern of pit bull type dogs. That is why new owners need to understand the dangers of having a pit-bull type dog as that kind of bite-force combined with that shaking and holding on causes great damage. Here is a study I recommend (tinyURL link to the PDF, it won't let me type the full link in directly so you have to put together the tinyURL dot com part):

https:// + tinyURL + dot + com + /yc5yb4by

In terms of what I view as bad science, this would be the one:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10997153/

It is an AVMA report. The data show that pit bulls are a problem even back in the late 1990s. They only look at the two year data, where Rottweilers play a larger role and gloss over the 20 year data. Then rather than analyzing the 20 year data in more detail they launch into a long discussion session that is less science than their interpretation of proper policies.

Anyway, you may disagree with me on one, the other, or both, but I am hoping that you would agree that potential owners should know what they are getting into. For example, AmStaffs were a recommended breed for seniors by AARP according to this lawyer’s video:

https:// + tinyURL + dot + com + /yckp7jbf

Fortunately, it appears they have retracted that recommendation. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not I who disagrees with you, Veritas Aeterna, it is science that disagrees with you. WP should not be misinforming owners by including breaking news reports which are typically anecdotal accounts resulting from visual IDs, and stereotypes. Encyclopedias do not pigeon hole purebred dogs that are registered with a reputable breed registry with breed types that are identified based only on a visual ID, especially when there is no science-based evidence that supports the claim. Read bull and terrier for some insight into the history of the heterogenous group of dogs referred to today as "pit bulls". As WP editors, we simply provide the facts based on material that is supported by good science and/or RS that publish verifiable material that is neither outdated nor recently debunked. For example, your comment, "the bite-shake-hold-on pattern of pit bull type dogs" is a myth. The behavior is inherent in Canis familiaris. Anyone who has ever owned a puppy and played tug of war with it using a toy knows that simple fact. Another known fact: dogs become what their owners and environments make them. There are television shows and dog trainers that are making a fortune showing how easily it is to train that bad behavior out of a dog...any breed. Breeding simply makes a dog more suitable for the jobs they are tasked to perform. The bite-shake-hold behavior is common, and has nothing to do with the breed of a dog. Back in the 18th and 19th centuries, dogs were bred for function, not looks. They came in all shapes and sizes, and were named after the function they served (they had no breed registries back then) such as "bull dog" (a dog that was used to bait bulls), "pit bull" (a dog that fought in the pits) "rat terrier" (a dog that killed rats), "fox terrier", etc. Please read the linked article from the University of Pennsylvania, Scholarly Commons, and the article published in The Cut titled How Both Sides of the Pit Bull Debate Get It Wrong. Remember, the American Staffordshire Terrier is not a pit bull; rather, it is a purebred dog that, over generations of careful breeding, has evolved into a completely different dog than those used for blood sports some 200 years ago. Atsme 💬 📧 02:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Happy to discuss this purely on the basis of science! There is a lot to address here:

How the pit bull lobby distorts and muddies the science
How pit bulls attack
The history of pit bulls
Data supporting the danger of American Staffordshire Terriers

First, we have to address the pit bull lobby, which is deliberately muddying the science, just as the tobacco lobby did for smoking. Please watch this Canadian Investigative video on pit bulls and their lobby as an introduction:

Pit Bulls Unleashed: Should They Be Banned? - The Fifth Estate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFa8HOdegZA

Yes, I read the Wikipedia Page you mentioned. Thank you. Please check out the following pages which I find to be an even more comprehensive history:

Dog fighting is still a problem and people are still looking for “game dogs”.

To show that dog fighting still affects breeding, try Googling:

kennels +(“game dog" or “game bred” or “game pit*”)

To see the results of the pit bull lobby propaganda, go to GoFundMe and try this query:

pitbull attack

I agree we debate on the merits of the science. As you can see the studies in AVMA are biased. The multi-million dollar pit-bull lobby is funded by Animal Farm Foundation (AFF), owned by Jane Berkey, has its own front organization to run biased studies, the National Canine Research Council (NCRC). These studies appear in AVMA, which is also pro-pit. Wikipedia is about truth, not biased studies.

Accurate statistics, not those subsidized by lobbying, are available here:

https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-studies-level-1-trauma-table-2011-present.php

Since this article is about American Staffordshire Terriers, we have to look elsewhere. There are two articles below from non-US countries that we could include. One is from Canada and the other from Australia. Two more data points, with local attack numbers, not just anecdotal stories.

Canada

Pit bulls are worst offenders in fatal dog-on-dog attacks, Edmonton stats show | CBC News

A 2017 article:

Australia

Unfortunately, American Staffordshire Terriers are not yet banned in Australia although the APBT is.

Canine expert says American Staffy dog that killed baby while parents slept saw newborn ‘as prey’ | The Independent

So we could include more data from Canada or Australia if you like.

Since this page is on American Staffordshire Terriers, one of several pit-bull kind of dogs, I think the burden of proof is on the breeders to show that in some 50+ years since the stud books were closed to APBTs, which were bred for “game” in the fighting ring, that their temperament is significantly different from APBTs. Where is that proof? Something more scientific than the AKC Temperament Test (ATT), of course.

Anyway, I hope you watch the Fifth Estate video. You’ll see why we have to fairly warn Wikipedia readers of potential dangers.

Finally, you are right that I need to further characterize the biting style of pit bulls as going far beyond bite-shake-and-hold-on, the following is a better characterization: “Instead of a warning bite, we saw wounds where the flesh was torn from the victim. There were multiple bite wounds covering many different anatomical sites. The attacks were generally unprovoked, persistent and often involved more than one dog. In every instance the dog involved was a pit bull or a pit bull mix.” That’s from Dr. Billmire, professor and director of the Division of Craniofacial and Pediatric Plastic Surgery at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.

[Billmire, M.D., David (2014-06-29). "Opinion: There is no need for pit bulls" (News site). Cincinnati.com | The Enquirer. Retrieved 2023-04-27.]

Also, if you are interested in more detail on the pit bull lobby, see below, for a description of the 5 levels on which it operates.