Talk:Pit bull

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 11 as Talk:Pit bull/Archive 10 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 17 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaitlynn1015.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC) This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brianne202 (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Oliviapalazzi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relationship with race

Pit bull ownership is popularly associated with black people (in contrast with other breeds, such as the Golden Retriever, which is associated with white people).

Perhaps just "In the US", or something? Benjamin (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Found another source. [1] Benjamin (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The second last paragraph of the history section already says the type becoming a status symbol in American gang culture, perhaps add a sentence to that paragraph saying something like A 2020 study conducted in the United States by the University of California, Irvine found that when asked what varieties of dog black people are likely to own, a majority of people guesses pit bulls or Rottweilers. (I filled out a few more parameters in the citation) The second source conducted a poll using an American Pit Bull Terrier, whilst representative there is a distinction.

I oppose having a separate section and I strongly oppose adding this to other breed pages, except the Husky none of the other breeds/types listed are American and all are incredibly common throughout the world. Cavalryman (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC).

@Geogene:, to respond to your edit summary, I just happened to link that particular post that mentioned it, but the survey itself wasn't about that in particular, as I understand. I agree that one particular campaign isn't especially relevant, but that wasn't what I was talking about in the first place. Benjamin (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Found another source: [2] Benjamin (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting that Guenther calls out the racism of animal shelters, but basically it's an opinion piece. She cites Bronwen Dickey's "Pitbulls: the Battle over an American Icon" which we discussed previously and found not to be a reliable source. Geogene (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Here's another interesting study on race and pit bulls. https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/32171-25-1-third-articlepdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazdeviloo7 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Another WP:PRIMARY opinion piece that only applies to the United States? Again, why do other countries ban these dogs? Geogene (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The study had 170 participants rating what dogs they associates with what gender and race. You seem to be derailling topics with injected statements. Please add value to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazdeviloo7 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I've read this before. It is not a study, it's an article in a law review. It cited a study where white participants were asked about what kind of dogs they associate with black people. The answer from the research they cited was that white people associate black people with dangerous dogs -- pitbulls and rottweilers. The author of the law review then presented an original legal theory that if the racist associations of the white people in the survey group were actually a factual description of black peoples' preference in dog ownership, then it might be illegal under the Fair Housing Act to ban pitbulls from housing. That's what this paper is about. This is not particularly useful as a source for much of anything, and it's really just Whataboutism. It makes no attempt at determining whether pitbulls are actually dangerous or not, or why the racist white survey group perceives pits and rotts as dangerous. Geogene (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Notable pit bulls

Would the notable pit bulls section work better as a bulleted list? I think so, because there is only one sentence about each dog and the last two entries especially look like they were written as if they were intended to be bullet points. Fyndegil (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I took a look, and it does seem it would flow better as a bulleted list. Minkai ^(rawr!) _{(see where I screwed up)} 23:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the "pop-cult" section, and my experience is that bulleted lists tends to encourage people to add unsourced/badly sourced crap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Look at it from the reader's persepective. Instead of a neat list, you have an unappealing wall of text that is tedious to read. Then again, a bunch of ^{[citation needed]s} would also detract from the quality of the article, both aesthetically and in terms worth to the encyclopedia. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 16:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite a wall of text just yet, but you have a point. How about century-paragraphs? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: What is a century-paragraph? Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 17:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I added paragraphs that happened to divide the dogs by century. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, Gråbergs Gråa Sång! Thank you so much! The paragraphs-by-century method makes the section easier to read and doesn't invited poorly sourced content. I'm glad we were able to defuse this conflict before it began. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 18:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks better now. I'm glad the community was able to come up with a solution better than mine. Fyndegil (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2021

In the sentence “ Pit bull-type dogs have a controversial reputation as pets both in the United States and internationally, due to their history in dog fighting, the number of high-profile attacks documented in the media over decades, and their proclivity to latching on while biting” the “and their proclivity for latching on while biting” should be deleted, as the source cited makes absolutely no claims on that topic. Frankenmouse (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Frankenmouse (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See under "Dog attack risk": "Pit bulls are known for their tenacity and refusal to release a bite, even in the face of great pain." To me, this is equivalent to "proclivity to latching on while biting". General Ization ^Talk 09:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I moved that citation to the portion of that sentence that it supports. The statement is in the lede, so it summarizes the body of the article (and does not require inline citations); the portion you are objecting to is supported by citations in the body of the article. General Ization ^Talk 09:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Did the pit bull lobby write this article?

Sorry, but this article reads as though it was written by the pit bull lobby. The CDC has documented the fact that pit bulls kill more people than any other breed. And that was back in the 1980s and 1990s when pit bulls were much less common. Other recent studies have documented the fact that bites from pit bulls are more likely to result in severe injury and death. I was hoping to see a more balanced discussion here. Furthermore, the AMVA is literally funded by the pit bull lobby. Citing actually studies would be better. Let's face it, pit bulls kill 300 people every decade in the United States. There is no reason to try to hide this basic fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:5B81:F80:41E7:D398:B919:381A (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2021

Suggest linking text "American Pit Bull Terrier" in first paragraph to existing wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Pit_Bull_Terrier Chpatton013 (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, disregard this post. I was looking at the second instance of "American Pit Bull Terrier", and didn't realize that the first instance was properly linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chpatton013 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. Merry Christmas. Cavalryman (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC).

Breed specific legislation needs updating

I updated the Breed specific legislation portion since the first line said that there were only 2 revisions of BSL. This is false since there's been at least 64 municipality repeals since 2018. I think this recent trend of BSL being repealed and outlawed in the US should be noted, there hasn't been any new BSL enacted since 2018 that I know of. Another user keeps claiming that the source I used (pitbullinfo.org) was biased since it is a pro pit bull website and keeps undoing my edits. I understand the concern, but the page I linked links to confirmation for all 64 repeals, usually local news articles. There is no better compilation of news articles on repeals, the website keeps the list up to date as well always sourcing the new additions. At least 64 BSL repeals in the US since 2018 is a well documented fact and not up for debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazdeviloo7 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It isn't clear that pitbullinfo.org is a reliable source for anything in Wikipedia. If pitbullinfo.org is reliable as some kind of news aggregator, then dogsbite.org should also be unquestionably reliable. Also, some of these edits tried introduce POV wording, changing Widely reported pit bull attacks have resulted in to Widely publicized pit bull attacks have often driven the enactment of and replaced journalistic sources (eg, denver.cbslocal.com) with advocacy group sourcing (eg, Ohio Animal Advocates) [3]. It would also seem to worsen the article's focus on U.S. politics. For example, what about the new pitbull ban that comes into effect in Taiwan next month? [4] In fact, if these dogs are so wonderful, why do so many countries around the world ban them? Geogene (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

How is a link to a website that counts and links to a local news story for the jurisdiction of every pitbull repeal not credible? Dogsbite.org is definitely not credible, and I can explain why. This source is only talking about laws that were passed/repealed. This is objective fact. Either a law was or was not repealed and there is no bias as to the matter. Dogsbite.org is a blog where a user unfamiliar with the actual story makes a presumption of the breed, or relies on the opinion of a journalist who did not confirm a breed by genetic testing. There are countless examples showing that breed identification by looks is highly unreliable, so why are we comparing apples to oranges here? I agree, linking all 64 municipalities would be ideal, but do you really want 64 tags at the end of a sentence or just one?Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, A brand new account, created just for this discussion, taking a very partisan position in a controversial article, signing its posts. That's interesting. Geogene (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you going to argue the subject matter or not? Seems like you are more interested in silencing anything you disagree with than arguing facts. Additionally, why is wikipedia using a time article that's source is Dogsbite.org? https://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-pit-bull-attack-of-a-little-girl/ Source 11. All its sources are advocacy groups, which casts doubt in the articles credibility. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If a reliable source cited Dogsbite.org for a fact, that means that Dogsbite.org is probably reliable for that fact. It doesn't discredit the reliable source, it makes dogsbite reliable. Geogene (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I would call it lazy reporting. Seems like they either don't know how, or failed to, evaluate their sources. Also, using your argument, then pitbullinfo.org is reliable since they have also been cited by news orgnaizations. See:

https://www.newsweek.com/pit-bull-myths-facts-history-dogs-pets-1567290 , https://provincetownindependent.org/inner-voices/2020/07/23/the-bias-against-pit-bulls/

But just being cited doesn't mean something is credible. Instead, especially with advocacy sites, objective facts should be used. Like, was something repealed, or was it not?Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, who claimed these dogs to be so wonderful as you previously stated "In fact, if these dogs are so wonderful, why do so many countries around the world ban them?" We are discussing updating objective truths here and not opinions. I don't see anyone making this argument, so why are you putting opinions in people's words? The fact of the matter is, BSL is reversing is the US, so why not add it? If a BSL got passed in Taiwan, why not mention it as well? Seems like this trend, which is objectively happening in the US, seems to offend your opinions on pitbulls. Which begs the question, why are your opinions on pitbulls more relevant than objective truths? So you don't like the source, but you're okay with the statement that BSL is on its way out in the US, so long as all 64 sources are linked at the end of the sentence? They're news links, which apparently are reliable as you mentioned before.Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

That was a lot to throw out there so I'll do my best to address everything Geogene. The pitbullinfo.org website's compilation of news articles[1] on BSL repeals is not reporting on a subjective matter like the breed of dog in a dog attack which dogsbite.org does. The breed specific legislation was repealed or it was not. There's no breed mixes or inaccurate breed identification to muddy the data. I can source all 64 individual repeals if need be. Also, the "POV" wording is irrelevant, they both say essentially the same thing. We can leave the wording as is, but the 2 BSL reversals needs to be removed since it's severely outdated(again, at least 64). The sources I removed were concerning the 2 repealed bans, they were news articles on the 2 repeals which were already covered in the pitbullinfo.org compilation. The Ohio Animal Advocates website was the only source I could find for the full unaltered American Bar Associations Statement 100 on breed specific legislation which is a great source for breed specific legislation in general terms. My other source was an archived 1987 Time Magazine cover & article on dangerous pit bulls which was supporting my use of "widely publicized". Finally, we should add the Taiwan pit bull ban coming next month. This is no place to debate the merits of pit bulls. No matter how much someone dislikes or likes pit bulls, the 64 ban repeals in the US since 2018 happened and the upcoming Taiwan ban is coming up. We should add both since they're highly relevant to BSL and pit bulls and objective facts. I suggest you add the Taiwan ban part since you know more about it.

Better sources, please Geogene (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

So you'd like all 64 links to each news article then? I mean, something can be types up that lists each place that repealed them with a news scource, but its going to eat a lot of page space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiased6969 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I added in 4 more sources on individual city repeals as a compromise. As far as the sentence "Widely reported pit bull attacks and media have largely resulted in the enactment of breed-specific legislation (BSL) in several jurisdictions", there is no better source than the American Veterinary Medical Association[4] and American Bar Association already sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazdeviloo7 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

And that's overciting. One or two good, reliable sources is usually enough. Just not pitbullinfo.org, because it's not RS. Not a fan of sourcing that to the ASPCA, because they're another advocacy group, but I did see some reliable sources you used as well. Geogene (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

All the sources I listed were directly linked in the pitbullinfo.org source so if anything just keep that one. For objective facts like if a city has a BSL repeal or not, even a biased source is fine.

No. Pay attention: do not cite that source. Listen to Geogene. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

No, let's delete pitbullinfo.org, and use the individual references therein if they are reliable. Let's not use pitbullinfo.org as a secondary WP:SYNTHESIS of those sources, because it's not reliable. Geogene (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Just how is this compilation of municipalities with repealed BSL by pitbullinfo.org not reliable? It's the most comprehensive and accurate I've seen on the subject. One or two articles showing a single city had a BSL repeal does not prove to me that there were 64 since 2018, but the pitbullinfo.org compilation with direct links to said news articles does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazdeviloo7 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems like Pitbullinfo.org is collecting WP:PRIMARY sources and doing their own synthesis to make their own WP:SECONDARY claim. This raises the question, why not just find a reliable source somewhere else for the claim, if the info has so much WP:WEIGHT that it needs to be in the article. And, how big are these municipalities, anyway? Geogene (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Per the WP:SYNTHESIS, "If one reliable source says A(single city repeal) and another reliable source says B(another single city repeal), do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C(164 repeals since 2018) not mentioned by either of the sources. There is not interpretation being considered on these primary sources, the 64 linked articles on each BSL repeal by pitbullinfo. These repeals are being done at a much faster rate than they were put up in the 90's and 2000's so it's very relevant to BSL as a whole in the US, it holds more weight than most of the BSL section currently. Some of the municipalities are big like Denver, Aurora, Kansas city, etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazdeviloo7 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, but then lets talk about this sentence and the source "A number of controlled studies have argued that the type is not disproportionately dangerous, offering competing interpretations on dog bite statistics. Independent organizations have published statistics based on hospital records showing pit bulls are responsible for more than half of dog bite incidents among all breeds despite comprising 6% of pet dogs.[11]" The 6% figure is objectively false, and was sources from animal24/7.org, a biased blog ran by one person with an agenda. Why is this source allowed to be used and not pitbullinfo.org? Seems a little hypocritical to have that up and not allow pitbullinfo.org. Response?Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Tazdeviloo7, if you're going to try and cite policy to old-timers like me and Geogene, please do us the courtesy of signing your messages. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Because that particular factoid from animals24-7 is being cited by a reliable source, Time. The article never cites animals24-7 directly. Geogene (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

If Source 1 cites an unreliable source, then Source 1 no longer is a reliable source.... The reliability of the Time article is reliant upon the sources used. Since it has been shown that Animals24/7 is unreliable and Dogsbite.org is also unreliable, then the Time's article become unreliable as well. You don't get to just cite anything and slap a Time's logo on something and it automatically becomes reliable. You evaluate the article based on the quality of the work and data collected for it.Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Pitbulls 6% of dogs in US reliable source?

In the introduction, the phrase "despite compromising 6% of pet dogs" is used and it references this Time Magazine article as a source. (Side note, the KFC debacle which the article focused on turned out to be a hoax.) The 6% is attributed in the article to Merrit Clifton, editor of Animals 24-7 which is his personal blog.

The 6% statement is in contrast to this quote from the American Medical Veterinary Association "...the number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known, because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed, and existing licensing data is then incomplete. Breed data likely vary between communities, states, or regions, and can even vary between neighborhoods within a community."

I don't think the source the 6% is reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazdeviloo7 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Its objectively not. That whole Time article should be scrubbed as its very irresponsible reporting as citing a blog is not a "source". Love to hear an argument for keeping it though.Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The 6% figure is also found in Pit Bulls for Dummies, [5] which seems to have been written by a dog expert, and has been used as a source in this article since at least 2013. Geogene (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

You are not going win this. Just because Pit Bulls for Dummies chose to use a personal blog and "evidence" gathered by one person as a source does not mean that the source is valid. It is an advocacy site, and to allow animals24/7 and not pitbullinfo.org on the grounds of being an advocacy site it purely hypocritical. Especially when Radio Canada already dunked on animals24/7 showing its trash data here: https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/802064/donnes-non-scientifiques-anti-pitbulls go ahead and translate to English and give it a read. Also, if your arguement for keeping a source is "its been used since 2013", then it needs to be removed as that isn't an actually argument for the reliability of the source. I can point to so many things that were considered to be factual at one point and then disproven... education evolves and refusing to remove a source simply because its been used already is irresponsible.Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

You are not going win this. You're starting to sound kind of biased, Unbiased6969. I already pointed out that there are two different reliable sources already in use in the article that cite that factoid. Geogene (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a bias for objectivity. Got me. What is the actual argument for using animal24/7 as a source. Not who cites it, but the quality and the quantity of the data collected. Where is the argument for that? I also take it you did not read the RadioCanada article, so I must ask, why are you arguing this if you refuse to read sources?Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion can go anywhere until you recognize that animals 24/7 is not being used as a source in the article. Geogene (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Then I guess I will go to get outside opinions to settle the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiased6969 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It certainly puts the dog bite deaths figures into perspective, considering just two breeds, pit bulls and Rottweilers, account for 2/3 of those deaths. -- Valjean (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Whatever the true pit population really is, it doesn't seem to be particularly controversial in medical journals that pits, along with rotts and German shepherds, are the main cause of serious dog bites. [6], [7]. Geogene (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Except that the true likely % of the population for pitbulls is around 20% and saying 6% cause 53% of deaths makes it sound far more menacing that 20% of the population causes 53% of the deaths. Ignoring the accuracy of the % of death claims as that is a whole other argument. It is propaganda pushed by a blogsite that you are perpetuating on a website that is supposed to be objectively actual data. Use actual sources for this 6% and not a Time Magazine sourcing Aniamls24/7 for that 6% Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is using actual sources. Where are you getting the 20%, since earlier you claimed that nobody knows how many pits there are? Geogene (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is using Time, which is using Animals24/7, so therefore, the Article is using Animals24/7 as the 6% is data originating from Animals24/7 and not something the author of the Time article came up with from her own studies. I don't see how you cannot see this. Here: https://www.pitbullinfo.org/pit-bulls-population.html Specifically under the 20% population estimate heading, where they include their source data and analyze how they came to 20% using source data like AKC breed registration and cross referencing it with shelter intake data. No one is claiming its the bible of breed data as it has some criticism that I could throw at it, but its objectively the best analysis of the population of pitbulls there is. That is until the pet industry releases their proprietary surveys that have probably spent a lot of money one determining the true breed shares. Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I see. You want to replace Time with pitbullinfo.org. I don't think that's reasonable. Why did two new accounts come here to start citing pitbullinfo.org at the same time? Geogene (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice strawman, I never said I wanted to replace it. I just have been arguing that the Time article should not be cited as it sources Animals24/7 for its credibility. If you think I am this Taz person, feel free to report me to administrators so they can inform you that you are woefully wrong. I can see you are more interested in gatekeeping your opinion and less about bettering the wiki page. I will see outside opinion and proceed accordingly. Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

From Fatal dog attacks:

the data indicated that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998, and followed with "It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."

-- Valjean (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

How is this in anyway relevant to the discussion of Time being a reputable source being that it is sourced from Animals24/7 to determine its data on population percentage and attack percentages.Unbiased6969 (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Dogsbite.org being used source 40?

Used to cite this opinion "Pit bulls are known for their tenacity and refusal to release a bite, even in the face of great pain." Known by whom? If you are claiming pitbullinfo.org cannot be used as it is an advocacy site, then I'd love to hear the argument for this. Anything other than I am a hypocrite is disingenuous. Geogene quite literally said in his first response to BSL "If pitbullinfo.org is reliable as some kind of news aggregator, then dogsbite.org should also be unquestionably reliable". Consequently, if dogsbite.org is reliable enough to be cited on the wiki page, then so should pitbullinfo.org. Regardless how it may hurt your opinions. Quite literally, any mentions of either Animals24/7, Dogsbite.org, or Pitbullinfo.org should warrant inviting all being used as sources, or none. Quit with this picking and choosing based on your beliefs. Remove them all, or or include them all.