Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Nutter Hypocrites: Wikipedia Edition

In June of 2012, I had to deal with a nutter who vandalized Wikipedia and accused me of vandalism. The Stubby article had previously correctly stated that he was "of unknown breed" (Craven already covered this), but some nutters repeatedly edited it to say he was a pit bull  (or pitbull or pittbull - funny how they don't know what their dog is called) based on no factual information at all besides what their god Cesar Millan says. A few intelligent Wiki editors repeatedly changed it back to say he was of unknown breed while the nutter editors argued over whether it was "pit bull" or "pittbull." I think the few intelligent people in a sea of unbeatable stupidity eventually gave up. I figured I'd have a go at reverting it back to "unknown breed." Then Solarra, an editor who lives in her own made up world, reverted it back to "pitbull" and said I was a vandal.

I posted on her page and questioned her actions, as seen in this photo (I obscured my IP address for safety reasons):

As you can see, Solarra, who is nothing out of the ordinary for a pit bull advocate, is hypocritically basing her information on photos of Stubby, which is against Wikipedia's rules about reliable information. But wait! Don't pit nutters say that their mutant undogs can't be identified by anyone ever unless you do a gene test and get a legion of self-proclaimed experts? Apparently Solarra is breaking one of the nutter commandments! I tried to be nice to her per Wikipedia rules, but that kind of person is persuaded by nothing but their own emotions. She quickly archived the post, but I went into her archives and got a screenshot of it to share with our loyal readers, who can hopefully have a good laugh. Pit nutters are probably the single least reliable source of information. Maybe a falling coconut can knock some sense into them, or perhaps they'll fall and hit their head in bedroom slipper accident.If it doesn't kill them first, that is, since we all know how often falling coconuts and bedroom slippers kill people.


BrownToad said...

I think I have uncovered something. Owning a pit bull causes Chihuahua bites. Read most any comment about pit bull attacks and owners will say they have been bitten by a Chihuahua. I can only conclude from this that owning a pit bull causes Chihuahua bites.

Small Survivors said...

Yep, this just shows pit nutters don't believe what they're saying. They just say whatever they think will make a point to unsuspecting person or group.

What does it take to get a page locked? I don't see how that will ever end otherwise.


scurrilous amateur blogger said...

a gene test, get a legion of self-proclaimed experts and a divining rod.

well, i am so glad you took wikipedia on. it has become a joke as a legitimate research source.

Anonymous said...

BTB : yep , its all in how pitbulls are raised but chihuahuas are naturally vicious . i think it must be the owners.

DubV said...

Congrats on the fortitude to fight on wikipedia. I went to multiple resolution thingie a bobs to try to make the American Staffie article a bit better. I just checked it as you reminded me, and my changes have actually held since July 2012! So, it can be done if you work your way up the hierarchy, but it is a pain in the ass.

It's an obvious piece of hypocrisy among nutters that they claim all nice dogs that look even remotely like a pit as one of their own and yet require a huge effort to establish that a dog that attacked someone is also a pit. Never saw a single nutter have a light bulb moment on that, or anything really.

I think pits causing chi bites may actually be legit. If I were a little chi with owners dumb enough to have a pit staring at me with those reptilian eyes, I might be more likely to act out as well.

A cool blog would be just pictures of bites from all the little dogs that pit nutters like to throw under the bus. An exhaustive compendium of every band aid applied to a pomeranian bite across the US, then cross link to the several blogs that show pit carnage.

S.K.Y. said...

Hey, I just saw Stubby's taxidermied corpse at the American History Museum in Washington D.C. last month. It could just be bad taxidermy, but he didn't strike me as particularly pit bull looking. More boxer-ish, and considerably lighter and finer boned than most pits. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say something like a Boxer/Beagle mix.

Craven, your fight on Wikipedia reminds me of my own similar fight on the "Border Collie" Wikipedia page about five years ago.

My show-lines Border Collie has advanced herding titles and High-In-Trials with AKC, and has won ribbons in the intermediate class in USBCHA trials (AKA "real herding" trials, featuring ABCA-registered working lines dogs) on both sheep and cattle. I know several other show-lines BCs that have similar accomplishments in herding, including making it to the USBCHA National Championships in the advanced (Open) class.

I noticed that the "Border Collie" page had obviously been written or edited by the anti-AKC Border Collie fanatics, because they had written something like "AKC Border Collies lost all their herding instinct many generations ago, and none today can herd. Only ABCA-registered Border Collies can herd."

I made some very moderate change, like:

"While AKC Border Collies have less herding ability, on average, than ABCA Border Collies, there are a few AKC-registered individuals who have competed at the advanced level."

Within minutes, my sentence was over-written. I continued to come back and write my sentence every day for weeks, and it was always promptly over-written. I brought this up on a "working BC" forum, and got loads of hate mail and even 3 a.m. hang-up calls. They accused me of single-handedly ruining the BC breed with my neutered show-lines BC that also happened to win a lot in herding... The reason? Because people will see that not all AKC dogs suck, and therefore will not necessarily feel forced to buy only ABCA Border Collies.

At the time, I thought there was nothing more rabid than an anti-AKC Border Collie person. And then I got into the world of BSL vs. pit nutters. :-)

Anonymous said...

pretty tough getting some people to let go , reminds me of a certain kind of dog .
that brainless stubborn type of person seems to like pitbulls for some reason . not mules or donkeys though lol

Rag Doll said...

In 1921 stubby was a Boston Bull Terrier. http://americasdog.blogspot.nl/2011/12/stubby-gets-decorated.html

Branwyne Finch said...

Oh, for the love of God, the Stubby thing again. I don't know why this pisses me off so much. Stubby was a BOSTON TERRIER!!!!! If you look at the pictures of him standing next to people, he was the size of a large housecat. He looks EXCACTLY like the Boston Terriers of that time, even down to the markings....at that time, Boston Terriers were being bred in many colors, brindle, fawn, etc.

Here is a website that claims Stubby was a pit bull, but if you look at the pictures, you can see he was a TINY little dog.


Scroll down and look at the two soldiers holding Stubby by them paws...I would guess that Stubby weighed about 15 pounds.

Finally, I am not sure why no one has picked up on this...his name was Stubby because he had a "gimpy little stub of a tail". Boston Terriers do not have their tails docked...they are born with "stubby" small tails, sometimes they have kinks in them. It is a genetic characteristic of Boston Terriers, NOT of APBTs.

Stubby had every characteristic of a Boston terrier...phenotype, coloring, size, and the unusual stubby short tail.

S.K.Y. said...

Branwyne, thanks for clarifying Stubby's breed. I don't think it stated a breed on his tag at the museum, and I had always heard him described (by nutters) as a pit bull. But an early 20th century Boston Terrier would pretty much nail it. I mentioned he looked like a mix of pit bull (because he was somewhat brachycephalic) and beagle (because of the small size). I would agree that 15 lb. seems about right. Boston Terrier makes perfect sense in light of these items. Not to mention the TAIL. Duh--why didn't I think to look at that while at the museum?!

PutMeInCharge4OneDay said...

I hear next on the agenda the nutters are going to claim Lassie is also a pitbull.

scorched earth said...

LOL Putme Incharge!

Rin Tin Tin, and probably Flicka as well.

Branwyne Finch said...

LOL, SKY, I posted before I saw your post! I wasn't directing my frustration at you, just at this whole "Stubby the pit bull" nonsense. The Boston Terrier people don't seem to want to get into a pissing contest with the crazy pit bull advocates, but I am sure anyone well versed in the Boston Terrier history could look at pics of Stubby and identify him clearly as a Boston Terrier.

SKY, I think the confusion comes from the fact that the early Boston terriers looked different from the breed today. In addition, Stubby was found wandering as a stray at Yale University in Ct....New England is where the breed originated, and according to breed historians, from 1929-1935 the Boston Terrier was the most popular breed in America. Stubby died in 1926, so he lived in an area, and at a time, when this breed was very popular and common.

The picture of those two soldiers, bending down a bit to hold his tiny paws, really illustrates his size, and finer bone structure.

Everything adds up to him being a Boston, including the time and place he was found.

safer midwifery utah said...

I don't care if stubby was a pit, wtf would that prove exactly?

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

i'm pretty sure the first animal to learn sign language was a pit bull.

it really depends on your definition of PIT BULL. i say yes, stubby was a pit bull, his roots are in the pit. was he an american pit bull terrier? absolutely not. most pit nutters make that claim.

skeptifem, excellent question and the answer is: if pit nutters criticize us for condemning an entire breed based on a FEW HUNDRED bad apples each year, then they should not glorify an entire breed for the actions of a handful of dogs over the entire history of the breed.

vintage said...


Dec 4, 2012: Jamaica; 2 year old Ronica Gregory becomes the planet's 447th documented Pit Bull fatality.


Please increase Casket Stack graphic to reflect a sky scraping 856.75 ft for the Nanny dogs.

The Pomeranian stack remains at 23 inches.

Sigh...You Can't Make This Stuff Up.

S.K.Y. said...

The "I Love Responsible Dog Breeders" FB group asked today if there was a breed we would NEVER have. One person said "no pits," and then a dozen or so pit owners jumped in to say that pits were "the nicest dogs in the world," gentle, etc.... and the breed THEY would never have would be (drum roll please)... "SMALL dogs."

I particularly loved one comment, which I quote here in its entirety:

Becky Britz says she will not have:

"anything smaller than my cat. And Tina Marie [the person who didn't want a pit] - I used to feel the exact same way as you do about pit bulls and pit mixes, but I'm now owned by 3 of them, and they're the most amazing, loyal, SMART dogs I have ever met. We did have an issue with two of our dogs last summer that ended in a fatal fight, but that was due to a neurological defect and severe anxiety that was unable to be treated, and not due to the "pit bull" factor. My dogs would probably lick a robber to death, and that's about it.


As Vintage says "you can't make this stuff up"

And despite 246 comments, I don't see that a single person called her out on her killer dogs. (I'm wondering whether one of her dogs killed the other, or--as I'm guessing--the two of them ganged up and killed some poor Yorkie walking on leash at the dog park).

For the full thread, including my impassioned defense of small breeds, see https://www.facebook.com/ILoveDogBreeders/posts/480110975372810

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

not due to the pit bull factor. that's rich.

Anonymous said...

i think becky britz probably has a neurological defect too , i propose to call pitterine personality disorder. hope she doesnt turn on her roommate some evening in front of the tv over a beery hiccup.....and kill him .

Miss Margo said...

Jeez, SKY, quite the nutter quote, there. As the captions in Russian periodical might say, "This quote is presented without comment."

I have another question. Perhaps someone here can help me out.

What is it with pit bull owners and "loyalty?" They are always emphasizing how LOYAL pit bulls are. Pits are the MOST LOYAL dog.

It's horseshit, a fantasy, but that's besides the point. I don't get the nutter craving to be singularly adored by a dog. Of course everyone wants to be loved by the people and animals that they love, and most people cherish the personal bond they have with their pets.

I still don't value an animal based upon my perception of its "loyalty" to me. Almost any domestic animal will go with a person who feeds them and protects them or gives them attention. Nothing wrong with that.

I think that this "loyalty" stuff smacks of selfishness and jealousy. It's ME ME ME

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

funny how the nutters stress loyalty, especially in light of the fact that pit bulls are by far the most treacherous when it comes to biting the hand that feeds it.


S.K.Y. said...

Miss Margo,

You summed that up beautifully!

I think "loyalty" to a nutter type dog owner means:

1) "My dog is powerful and intimidating, and forces others to cross the street to avoid us.

2) "My dog is a great judge of character--after all, look who he chose for his mommy!"

As an addendum to #2:

"If my dogs doesn't bite visitors, this shows that pit bulls are friendly little wiggle butts. If he DOES bite visitors, he's obviously seen something 'evil' in them that I missed... and that makes him EXTRA valuable as a guard dog, because *I* thought my friend was NICE. Guess not, seeing as how my loyal dog bit her! Because Disney movies prove that dogs are flawless judges of human character. Right?"


I'm totally with Miss Margo on dogs being basically selfish beings that will go with whoever provides their favorite resources.

And having worked with many aggressive dogs in my past (before I realized that temperament is mostly genetic), I know that aggressive dogs are terrible "judges of character." For example, I knew dogs that bite men with mustaches, but not men with beards; dogs that bite people for the crime of wearing a jacket that makes a "crinkling" noise; dogs that bite boys between the ages of 4-7 that are sitting quietly on a sofa, but would totally ignore an adult that is acting threatening.

Pit nutters are always trying to justify their dogs' aggression:

"He growled at the guy on my porch, because the guy looked like a druggie / a drunk."

Neglecting to think that the guy could also be mentally or physically ill, or taking (legal) medication, or have a gait that's affected by Parkinson's, etc.

In the thread I linked to earlier, lots of people were saying that they only like large breeds (incl. pits) and not small breeds, because they feel "protected" walking down the street, or when alone at home. I've lived alone and in the countryside for much of my life (no other houses for 500 yards), and I certainly didn't expect dogs--with the intelligence of a 2-3 year old kid!--to make life or death decisions for me.

How's the dog know who's a mail carrier, who's a serial killer, and who's a meter reader? Heck, most humans couldn't recognize a serial killer--that's how they get away with killing for so long. So I can hardly expect my dog to sniff 'em out for me. Instead, I depend upon pepper spray and/or firearms in the miniscule chance of a break-in.

Dignitas said...

I guess I should have been more specific. They were editing it to say "American pittbull [sic] terrier," not just "pitbull/pittbull." If you look at the edit history of the page, you can see it going back and forth between all different spellings and misspellings. However you spell a lie, it's still a lie.

vintage said...


April 2002, North Richland Hills, TX; Pittie that attacked a child in an apartment complex is banished and schuffled to Spindletop Rescue near Houston. Spindletop would later deteriorate into an unregulated bankrupt mess in 2012.

Famous pit rescues Los Villo Lobos, Mariahs Promise and Spindletop have taken in maulers and later encountered financial issues requiring shutting down and or moving out of state....

Who is tracking the schuffled maulers? The Pit Bull community?!?.... Holy shit!


Disclaimer..I Am Not Making This Up!

vintage said...


Allowing the crazy sisters of the pit bull community to track schuffled maulers is tantamount to allowing the pedophiles at NAMBLA to track their own sex offenders.

Jesus Christ!

*You Can't Make This Stuff Up!

Branwyne Finch said...

As far as Stubby goes, for me the greatest irony is...most pit bull fanatics seem to HATE small breed dogs, and Stubby WAS a small breed dog. Pit bulls are slaughtering dogs the size of Stubby every day in this country. I think it's hilarious that pit bull advocacy is so lost in their fantasy world that they have actually refused to believe that a 15 lb. dog that stood about 12 inches at the shoulders was actually a "hero pit bull". The picture of Stubby standing with General Pershing, they have him on a table, he is obviously a little dog. The entire "Stubby the Pit Bull" meme relied on the fact that most pictures used to support this showed him alone...without any way to judge his size.

With regard to pit bulls and "loyalty", that is just another ridiculous attempt at anthropomorphism. The idea that pit bulls fight to "please" their masters, out of "loyalty" is so idiotic, I am at a loss for words. Pit bulls fight, border collies herd, beagles chase rabbits, because these are self rewarding behaviors for these breeds.

The fact that virtually all of the positive pit bull history narrative is completely false and fabricated should be a wake-up call to public officials....the same "humane advocates" advising you how to deal with dangerous dogs are liars. If they have fabricated a history for the dogs, why should anyone believe anything else they say?

Packhorse said...

Police apparently don't agree with the Nanny Dog myth!

Police: Man leaves baby alone with pit bull to go drinking


tropical storms said...

A man left his infant at home while he went out to get drunk. It's ok though because the baby wasn't alone, left the pitbull to watch it. See, they are nanny dogs. Read the news report, I sent it to twitter.

orangedog said...

But that man did nothing wrong! Nanny was watching the baby, just like all the advocates claim they do.

S.K.Y. said...

It was a stroke of luck that there was a closed door between the pit and the baby, or I fear we could be looking at another fatality. When the mother returned, the pit was waiting outside the baby's room... probably had been busy trying to shove its way in "to play."

Anonymous said...

pitters are always complaining about the " irresponsible owner" , yet never taking ownership of that label themselves . i guess they dont even know what the term means , just another overused catch phrase for irresponsible people to shift blame elsewhere. responsible people would take responsibility for themselves and their shit-dogs.

Anonymous said...

"blame the deed , not the breed"

"a deed cannot be made responsible for itself. there are stupid people and dangerous dogs behind these deeds"

balls up folks and take responsibility for yourselves and your dogs. ...... take ownership of the deed or be one of the nutter breed indeed.

vintage said...


Turbocharging your Anti-Mauling Advocacy with policy changes:

OUT: Nanny Dogs

IN: Darwin Dogs!

The taxpayer is getting mauled with massive first responder costs saving Pit owners from their idiotic selves...

Darwin Dogs is up!


Disclaimer...You Can't Make This Stuff Up!

Anonymous said...

"blame the deed not the breed"


take the breed and you own the deed .