'Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier' is hoax name for an 'American pit bull terrier', cos Wikipedia says so! So it MUST be true... Options

[Angela Kennedy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Staffor...re_Bull_Terrier

Big problems with this entry. Anyone who knows anything about the vagaries of European Breed Specific Legislation and dog breeding in general will know why the claims on wikipedia are wrong.

Furthermore, this sort of misinformation is only adding to the crazy situation facing people with innocent dogs in Britain, where dogs are being seized because they are muscular with broad heads.

Also - look at the so-called citations!

If anyone is up to putting this right I'd be grateful. I can't get involved directly as working on something else, also being banned from wikipedia (lol!) If anyone can, and you need more info, I can point you towards that.

[thekohser]

Rather than trying to get the Wikipedia article right, it would be more effective to help people understand how unreliable Wikipedia is, and how the Foundation that runs it is scamming donors of their money, in order to build a staffing empire.

[Angela Kennedy]

Rather than trying to get the Wikipedia article right, it would be more effective to help people understand how unreliable Wikipedia is, and how the Foundation that runs it is scamming donors of their money, in order to build a staffing empire.

To be honest Greg, that's a life's work, and not my priority or life's work (I see wikipedia as only one of various power-abusing misinformation spreading knowledge domains). As you know- I have specific battles to be fought with regard to my daughter's illness, for example

We all have to choose our battles, and this particular problem is not confined to wikipedia.

I also wanted to highlight another example of misinformation by Wikipedia. That can only help people whose life work is to make more comprehensive critiques of Wikipedia.

But this sort of stupid misinformation can lead to actual dogs being killed by the state in the UK: innocent, family dogs.

[EricBarbour]

Someone saw this thread, it appears.

And only two editors, Chaoticfluffy and Silverseren, had anything to say.
The decision was to merge it to another article, yet no one has done anything.

I would have left it there--to serve as an example of a bad article.

[SB_Johnny]

Someone saw this thread, it appears.

And only two editors, Chaoticfluffy and Silverseren, had anything to say.
The decision was to merge it to another article, yet no one has done anything.

I would have left it there--to serve as an example of a bad article.

I think the merge is what she was objecting to, since Pit Bulls are apparently illegal in the UK. The actual solution to that is changing the laws (most PBs I've met are actually very nice dogs).

We have a German Shepard and an Australian Shepard here. Both have bad reputations because they don't do so well in condos or 20x20 yards, but are great on farms.

[thekohser]

Rather than trying to get the Wikipedia article right, it would be more effective to help people understand how unreliable Wikipedia is, and how the Foundation that runs it is scamming donors of their money, in order to build a staffing empire.

To be honest Greg, that's a life's work, and not my priority or life's work (I see wikipedia as only one of various power-abusing misinformation spreading knowledge domains). As you know- I have specific battles to be fought with regard to my daughter's illness, for example

We all have to choose our battles, and this particular problem is not confined to wikipedia.

I also wanted to highlight another example of misinformation by Wikipedia. That can only help people whose life work is to make more comprehensive critiques of Wikipedia.

But this sort of stupid misinformation can lead to actual dogs being killed by the state in the UK: innocent, family dogs.

Whoops, I also forgot to mention that it would probably be easier to do what I suggested than to get a contentious Wikipedia article "right".

[CharlotteWebb]

I think the merge is what she was objecting to, since Pit Bulls are apparently illegal in the UK. The actual solution to that is changing the laws (most PBs I've met are actually very nice dogs).

It technically is racist when you get down to it. Doubly so when you consider the demographics of pit-bull ownership, but that's not how I meant it.

Dog breeds are kind of a social construct. If somebody told me "you can't keep that kind of dog here" I'd probably laugh and say "well you can't prove he's that kind of dog" which would probably be true as mine tend not to be documented. Growing up, we had one whose mother was a springer spaniel from down the road, and whose suspected father was a chocolate lab. But I know a municipal ordinance against Irish setters would have doomed him, as that's exactly what he looked like and we wouldn't have been able to prove otherwise. These things happen.

[lilburne]

But this sort of stupid misinformation can lead to actual dogs being killed by the state in the UK: innocent, family dogs.

One would think that the UK have various tests to determine whether a particular dog is one of those on the banned list, and that they do not simply look up what some wikipedia page says on any one particular day.

[Angela Kennedy]

But this sort of stupid misinformation can lead to actual dogs being killed by the state in the UK: innocent, family dogs.

One would think that the UK have various tests to determine whether a particular dog is one of those on the banned list, and that they do not simply look up what some wikipedia page says on any one particular day.

Well- you'd think so wouldn't you? It's more complex than that, unfortunately.

In the UK, there are hardly any known pedigree American Pitbull Terriers. What the law does, in the ridiculous social construct way Charlotte alludes to, is make it illegal to own a 'pitbull type'. Any dog that any fool thinks looks like a 'pitbull' can be seized, and put down if the owner signs it away, or impounded (and, a recent case has shown, kept in poor conditions). Various family dogs with no known 'pitbull' mix have been taken in this way. The onus is on the owner to 'prove' the dog isn't a 'pitbull-type'. It's a highly irrational contruct because of the vast differences you can get in ANY pedigree, let alone the various mixes of any dog, many of which are accidental (you all know what I mean!) and uncontrolled for .

The name 'Irish Staff' is a confusing social construct as well. Some staffs bred in Ireland are different to shorter legged British staffs (though we're not talking Kennel Club stuff here) But 'blue' staffs (grey and white mix) are often called Irish staffs. Now if a staff mix is long-legged, it might be accused of being a 'pitbull', even if the long legs are because a whippet or lurcher was the baby-daddy. Add to that the uncertainties of dog breed DNA searching, and we've got a terrible mess, and bad legislation.

But various newspapers and magazines are conducting a moral panic against 'pitbulls'. By misinformation like that on wikipedia, anyone told their dog was an Irish Staff and innocently repeating that could be put at risk, even if their dog has no 'pitbull' heritage (whatever that actually is), by some idiot thinking "that Irish staff must be a pitbull- wikipedia says so. I'm calling the police".

This is an example of real world chaos reproduced and possibly exacerbated by wikipedia and its vagaries.

I'm also against the demonising of pitbulls per se, and Breed Specific legislation, by the way, which is highly irrational for various reasons. But this is a specific problem I uncovered.

[lilburne]

But this sort of stupid misinformation can lead to actual dogs being killed by the state in the UK: innocent, family dogs.

One would think that the UK have various tests to determine whether a particular dog is one of those on the banned list, and that they do not simply look up what some wikipedia page says on any one particular day.

Well- you'd think so wouldn't you? It's more complex than that, unfortunately.


In the UK, there are hardly any known pedigree American Pitbull Terriers. What the law does, in the ridiculous social construct way Charlotte alludes to, is make it illegal to own a 'pitbull type'. Any dog that any fool thinks looks like a 'pitbull' can be seized, and put down if the owner signs it away, or impounded (and, a recent case has shown, kept in poor conditions). Various family dogs with no known 'pitbull' mix have been taken in this way. The onus is on the owner to 'prove' the dog isn't a 'pitbull-type'. It's a highly irrational contruct because of the vast differences you can get in ANY pedigree, let alone the various mixes of any dog, many of which are accidental (you all know what I mean!) and uncontrolled for .

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets...e-enforcers.pdf

But various newspapers and magazines are conducting a moral panic against 'pitbulls'. By misinformation like that on wikipedia, anyone told their dog was an Irish Staff and innocently repeating that could be put at risk, even if their dog has no 'pitbull' heritage (whatever that actually is), by some idiot thinking "that Irish staff must be a pitbull- wikipedia says so. I'm calling the police".

Yet we do have incidents of family dogs of this type killing babies, savaging other children in the family or neighbourhood, and mauling the owner that tries to intervene. In addition we have thugs on estates and in street gangs using these animal types as weapons.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/art...-crime-gangs.do

Now I'm all for saying that it is the owner that is responsible and its not the dogs fault etc, and the law is crap as it is hard to determine whether any particular dog falls into the prescribed category or not. But as far as I can tell family dogs do attack members of the family from time to time, and when the family dog happens to be one of the PBT types there is very little that the owner can do to stop severe harm occurring to the person attacked.

[Angela Kennedy]

But this sort of stupid misinformation can lead to actual dogs being killed by the state in the UK: innocent, family dogs.

One would think that the UK have various tests to determine whether a particular dog is one of those on the banned list, and that they do not simply look up what some wikipedia page says on any one particular day.

Well- you'd think so wouldn't you? It's more complex than that, unfortunately.


In the UK, there are hardly any known pedigree American Pitbull Terriers. What the law does, in the ridiculous social construct way Charlotte alludes to, is make it illegal to own a 'pitbull type'. Any dog that any fool thinks looks like a 'pitbull' can be seized, and put down if the owner signs it away, or impounded (and, a recent case has shown, kept in poor conditions). Various family dogs with no known 'pitbull' mix have been taken in this way. The onus is on the owner to 'prove' the dog isn't a 'pitbull-type'. It's a highly irrational contruct because of the vast differences you can get in ANY pedigree, let alone the various mixes of any dog, many of which are accidental (you all know what I mean!) and uncontrolled for .

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets...e-enforcers.pdf

But various newspapers and magazines are conducting a moral panic against 'pitbulls'. By misinformation like that on wikipedia, anyone told their dog was an Irish Staff and innocently repeating that could be put at risk, even if their dog has no 'pitbull' heritage (whatever that actually is), by some idiot thinking "that Irish staff must be a pitbull- wikipedia says so. I'm calling the police".

Yet we do have incidents of family dogs of this type killing babies, savaging other children in the family or neighbourhood, and mauling the owner that tries to intervene. In addition we have thugs on estates and in street gangs using these animal types as weapons.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/art...-crime-gangs.do

Now I'm all for saying that it is the owner that is responsible and its not the dogs fault etc, and the law is crap as it is hard to determine whether any particular dog falls into the prescribed category or not. But as far as I can tell family dogs do attack members of the family from time to time, and when the family dog happens to be one of the PBT types there is very little that the owner can do to stop severe harm occurring to the person attacked.

Ok. Death by dog bites at all (of ANY breed) are exceedingly rare. A child is more likely to be killed by a bucket of water in the U.S. One of the most common causes of death for children are at the hands of a care-giver (usually male). The death rate for children from THESE causes render dog attack statistics unshowable on the same data table! I'm not advocating incarcerating or killing someone because they look like a man by the way!

But in addition to this -some of the (RARE) fatalities you mention happen under circumstances (badly treated dogs, for example) with LEGAL dog breeds NOT covered under the breed specific legislation.

The belief that 'pitbulls' have locking jaws is inaccurate. Also, some research has shown their jaws strength to be less than German Shepherds and Rottweillers (that's the ABPT. The average mutt who looks like a staff mix? who knows).

A lot of the dog Breeds used as 'status' dogs are NOT illegal. This is where policing of sensible laws around safe dog ownership might come in useful. But there is an issue of class contempt here. Any working class young man wearing a hoodie (or middle aged man with make pattern baldness) with a little Staff can find himself constructed as deviant by this cultural meme.

I've got some information below which hopefully might show how unsafe most of press information on this subject actually is:

1. Karen Delise's 'Pit-bull Placebo: the media, myths and politics of canine aggression"
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/w...acebo-text1.pdf

2. 'On Treating the Symptoms and not the Cause: 
Reflections on the Dangerous Dogs Act' Paper from the British Criminology Conference, 2008
(Maria Kaspersson, University of Greenwich.)

3.http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/394/dog-bite-statistics-are-we-being-lied-to-by-politicians-with-a-hidden-dangerous-dog-agenda/

4.Janis Bradley's book 'Dogs Bite But Balloons and Slippers Are More Dangerous' (Amazon link):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dogs-Bite-Balloons...88182641&sr=1-2  

Unfortunately, people are easily led and believe crap from the papers and magazine, and Wikipedia of course!

[lilburne]

Yet we do have incidents of family dogs of this type killing babies, savaging other children in the family or neighbourhood, and mauling the owner that tries to intervene. In addition we have thugs on estates and in street gangs using these animal types as weapons.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/art...-crime-gangs.do

Now I'm all for saying that it is the owner that is responsible and its not the dogs fault etc, and the law is crap as it is hard to determine whether any particular dog falls into the prescribed category or not. But as far as I can tell family dogs do attack members of the family from time to time, and when the family dog happens to be one of the PBT types there is very little that the owner can do to stop severe harm occurring to the person attacked.

Ok. Death by dog bites at all (of ANY breed) are exceedingly rare. A child is more likely to be killed by a bucket of water in the U.S. One of the most common causes of death for children are at the hands of a care-giver (usually male). The death rate for children from THESE causes render dog attack statistics unshowable on the same data table! I'm not advocating incarcerating or killing someone because they look like a man by the way!

But in addition to this -some of the (RARE) fatalities you mention happen under circumstances (badly treated dogs, for example) with LEGAL dog breeds NOT covered under the breed specific legislation.

Well back in my misspent youth the animal of choice by the drug dealers was a Doberman or Rottweiler "'cos the Germans used them as guard dogs in WWII". Later in the mid 80s they were switching to Bull Terriers types or xbreeds with a good dose of bull terrier. Kept in small concrete backyards or flats where they'd show them off being aggressive with lumps of wood or metal bars.


So I was fairly unimpressed that the result was that dogs kept by those ill fitted to owning them, and unable to control them, caused a number of severe injuries to local kids, neighbours, and family members. It was predictable, and in the late 80s the breed that was most usually involved in attacks was the pitbull. Photos of savaged kid, with half of face missing makes good newspaper sales. People threatened in their estates by same types of dogs adds fuel to getting 'something done'.

A lot of the dog Breeds used as 'status' dogs are NOT illegal. This is where policing of sensible laws around safe dog ownership might come in useful. But there is an issue of class contempt here. Any working class young man wearing a hoodie (or middle aged man with make pattern baldness) with a little Staff can find himself constructed as deviant by this cultural meme.

Well we don't make laws that specifically make only Chavs criminals. We make laws that target the Chav lifestyle, binge drinking, racing around the streets late at night, dangerous dogs, hipsters (well maybe not but they should be made illegal), etc. If others partake in those activities then they get caught up in the same net.

Unfortunately, people are easily led and believe crap from the papers and magazine, and Wikipedia of course!

We all know the basic type of animal involved, and the legislation has been in place for 20 years. So if one is going to keep an animal that looks like one on the prescribed list, then one shouldn't be really be surprised about miss identification.

One needs to address the legislation, and as I linked to before the UK courts don't take wikipedia for their reference on this.

[Angela Kennedy]

Yet we do have incidents of family dogs of this type killing babies, savaging other children in the family or neighbourhood, and mauling the owner that tries to intervene. In addition we have thugs on estates and in street gangs using these animal types as weapons.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/art...-crime-gangs.do

Now I'm all for saying that it is the owner that is responsible and its not the dogs fault etc, and the law is crap as it is hard to determine whether any particular dog falls into the prescribed category or not. But as far as I can tell family dogs do attack members of the family from time to time, and when the family dog happens to be one of the PBT types there is very little that the owner can do to stop severe harm occurring to the person attacked.

Ok. Death by dog bites at all (of ANY breed) are exceedingly rare. A child is more likely to be killed by a bucket of water in the U.S. One of the most common causes of death for children are at the hands of a care-giver (usually male). The death rate for children from THESE causes render dog attack statistics unshowable on the same data table! I'm not advocating incarcerating or killing someone because they look like a man by the way!

But in addition to this -some of the (RARE) fatalities you mention happen under circumstances (badly treated dogs, for example) with LEGAL dog breeds NOT covered under the breed specific legislation.

Well back in my misspent youth the animal of choice by the drug dealers was a Doberman or Rottweiler "'cos the Germans used them as guard dogs in WWII". Later in the mid 80s they were switching to Bull Terriers types or xbreeds with a good dose of bull terrier. Kept in small concrete backyards or flats where they'd show them off being aggressive with lumps of wood or metal bars.


So I was fairly unimpressed that the result was that dogs kept by those ill fitted to owning them, and unable to control them, caused a number of severe injuries to local kids, neighbours, and family members. It was predictable, and in the late 80s the breed that was most usually involved in attacks was the pitbull. Photos of savaged kid, with half of face missing makes good newspaper sales. People threatened in their estates by same types of dogs adds fuel to getting 'something done'.

A lot of the dog Breeds used as 'status' dogs are NOT illegal. This is where policing of sensible laws around safe dog ownership might come in useful. But there is an issue of class contempt here. Any working class young man wearing a hoodie (or middle aged man with make pattern baldness) with a little Staff can find himself constructed as deviant by this cultural meme.

Well we don't make laws that specifically make only Chavs criminals. We make laws that target the Chav lifestyle, binge drinking, racing around the streets late at night, dangerous dogs, hipsters (well maybe not but they should be made illegal), etc. If others partake in those activities then they get caught up in the same net.

Unfortunately, people are easily led and believe crap from the papers and magazine, and Wikipedia of course!

We all know the basic type of animal involved, and the legislation has been in place for 20 years. So if one is going to keep an animal that looks like one on the prescribed list, then one shouldn't be really be surprised about miss identification.

One needs to address the legislation, and as I linked to before the UK courts don't take wikipedia for their reference on this.

Well, by your logic, any middle aged balding man with or without a bull breed (say, a rescue dog), or ANYONE wearing a hooded garment, or someone living on a poor estate, has only got themselves to blame, for their association with the Chav lifestyle and the 'prescribed' dog.

So only Chavvy looking dogs are dangerous. An old english sheepdog attacked a child a while ago. But we can't legislate against them because they are not poor or chavvy enough therefore can't be dangerous.

Wait a minute - what's a chav??? Do you think you know?

And- is it YOU who make the laws? You said "we" - is this the Royal we? Or are you the chav-finder pursuivant or something?

[lilburne]

Well, by your logic, any middle aged balding man with or without a bull breed (say, a rescue dog), or ANYONE wearing a hooded garment, or someone living on a poor estate, has only got themselves to blame, for their association with the Chav lifestyle and the 'prescribed' dog.

So only Chavvy looking dogs are dangerous. An old english sheepdog attacked a child a while ago. But we can't legislate against them because they are not poor or chavvy enough therefore can't be dangerous.

Wait a minute - what's a chav??? Do you think you know?

And- is it YOU who make the laws? You said "we" - is this the Royal we? Or are you the chav-finder pursuivant or something?

Short answer: screwy as the law might be, it doesn't use wikipedia to determine whether a dog is one of those banned. It uses the DEFRA guidelines, the opinions of qualified vets, and the RSPCA. One of the criticisms is that the whole process can take up to six months. So it is not correct to say that a stupid wikipedia page is going to get a dog killed.

And you are correct OES' aren't chavy you don't find them in great numbers on the sink estates, they weren't used in dog fights, and crucially they weren't the breed that was getting all the bad press back in the late 1980s, thus they aren't in on the list.

[Angela Kennedy]

Well, by your logic, any middle aged balding man with or without a bull breed (say, a rescue dog), or ANYONE wearing a hooded garment, or someone living on a poor estate, has only got themselves to blame, for their association with the Chav lifestyle and the 'prescribed' dog.

So only Chavvy looking dogs are dangerous. An old english sheepdog attacked a child a while ago. But we can't legislate against them because they are not poor or chavvy enough therefore can't be dangerous.

Wait a minute - what's a chav??? Do you think you know?

And- is it YOU who make the laws? You said "we" - is this the Royal we? Or are you the chav-finder pursuivant or something?

Short answer: screwy as the law might be, it doesn't use wikipedia to determine whether a dog is one of those banned. It uses the DEFRA guidelines, the opinions of qualified vets, and the RSPCA. One of the criticisms is that the whole process can take up to six months. So it is not correct to say that a stupid wikipedia page is going to get a dog killed.

And you are correct OES' aren't chavy you don't find them in great numbers on the sink estates, they weren't used in dog fights, and crucially they weren't the breed that was getting all the bad press back in the late 1980s, thus they aren't in on the list.

Ok, I have tried to explain the problem to you here. You've misrepresented my argument- and I don't know whether this is deliberate, or you are just really ignorant of the issue and have found yourself ideologically committed and so are not reading my earlier posts properly.

My guess is you haven't read those resources I put up either (one is a book - so I'm guessing not). You may not be aware (you don't seem to be) that Defra have put out consultation in response to criticism from various agencies about the problems in the breed specific part of the DDA. You may be aware the RSPCA and even Belfast council have criticised the BSL part of the DDA, and even qualified vets! (open mouth wide in shock)

Your short answer is inadequate, in sum. You are confusing dog fighting (a human crime which abuses dogs) with dog attacks on people (extremely rare, dog usually under duress, dodgy media reporting) - different issues. The police should be policing illegal fights of any kind (including dog fights). But innocent people with docile and well-behaved dogs have found themselves criminalised because of the confusion in the minds of people like yourself about this issue, and not only about dogs I might add, but possibly the working class as a whole (god help 'em/us).

Now I can try and argue with you, using more logic, and more facts, but I don't have the time. But you really are arguing from ignorance here.

So - anyone else - IF you are able to deal with the problem on wikipedia, then I will be grateful and I can offer some info to help. If not, then hopefully you will be aware of yet another article with misinformation with potential adverse real-world effects, courtesy of wikipedia.