"== Article flagged - could use a photo of a pit bull in attack mode ==

Before we get into discussing this article there is some background information that everyone needs to understand. First,statistically, pit bulls are less agressive (naturally) than, beagles, german shepards and other breeds. Secondly, the dogs only want to please their owners, that is why if you watch the [disgusting] videos of dog fighting you will see 90% of the dogs are wagging their tails because they hear their owner(s) encouraging them to fight. A perfect example is the Michael Vick case, his dogs were taken and put into kennels, as per a federal jury they were not killed because of the [high] profile of the case. Out of the 66 dogs there were taken 8 were put down; which means that is only 12%. Out of the other 58 dogs they have all been adopted to families along with being trained for hospice and hospitals to help raise self esteems on patients. The best saying to sum up the Pit Bull breed is too ""Blame the Deed NOT the Breed"" which means dont classify ALL pitbulls as fighting agressvie dogs, just the one's that are beaten and treated like crap by the owners and bred for fighting. Pit bulls are NOT agressive by nature. If you look at american history we used to LOVE Pit Bulls, I mean there was Petey (little rascals) and betty boop had a pitbull. Plus many other famous actors/actresses.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs)  

The article discusses at length the dangerous nature of pit bulls, but lacks a picture of a pit bull attacking or behaving aggressively. The photo of a muzzled pit bull is a start, but is insufficient. I realize it may not be easy to obtain a such a photo in the public domain or by permission, but I'm adding a request in any case.   

 Why does the article need that? Any dog breed can attack.  There's nothing special about the way that a bully breed attacks. The muzzle image is fine; it illustrates that fact that some bully breed individuals do have aggression tendencies which need to be addressed if the dog is in public.  Talk 

 A photo of an agressive dog would be better suited for a dog fighting article.  To place a photo of an aggressive dog in an article describing a breed would be similar to using a photo of a soldier shooting an enemy during war on the Human article...  Or a Jew in a concentration camp, or I suppose a photo of a mugging would compare to animal aggression, but those wouldn't be true to Human character would they?   

Isn't a photo of a muzzled dog more relevant to a discussion of dog muzzling laws? Some places, such as some public parks, require all dogs to be muzzled while attending, regardless of breed, so a photo of a muzzled dog can have different interpretations. As I wrote in my first post, for an article that discusses pit bull attacks, an illustration of such would not be improper to accompany the text. Wikipedia:Images: ""Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic."" Here are a couple of news media stories that felt it appropriate to use such images: http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0108/485244.html and http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/02/mandatory-confi.html. Perhaps a pit bull owner out there would be proud to have such an image of their guard dog in attack mode displayed in the article or perhaps a kennel owner or victim of an attack was able to snap a photo that they would donate and upload to Wikipedia Commons. I remember there used to be a photo of a ""smiling pit bull"" in the article (see archive Nov 1, 2007). We could return that in the positive press section at the same time to maintain balance.   

A single screenshot image could also be obtained from a television news report about pit bulls and included under fair use. Research: Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Non-free_content and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_television_screenshot Template:Non-free_tele