Jump to content

Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Jaydubya93 (talk | contribs)
1,127 edits
Line 798: Line 798:
:::::There are obviously dozens more reports like this, but I do not see the value in including them in this page. All the scholarly works (in other words, all the [[WP:RS]]) on DBRFs have excluded deaths due to infection and it would be wise for us to do the same. Deaths due to infection are very different from deaths due to exsanguination or direct nervous system trauma. [[User:Onefireuser|Onefireuser]] ([[User talk:Onefireuser|talk]]) 14:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::There are obviously dozens more reports like this, but I do not see the value in including them in this page. All the scholarly works (in other words, all the [[WP:RS]]) on DBRFs have excluded deaths due to infection and it would be wise for us to do the same. Deaths due to infection are very different from deaths due to exsanguination or direct nervous system trauma. [[User:Onefireuser|Onefireuser]] ([[User talk:Onefireuser|talk]]) 14:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for this, it's very interesting and would make a fine contribution to the article. Please reconsider your position and go ahead and add this information about Fatal Dog Attacks in the USA of the Ada Claire type. Why should they be excluded? Yes, they are different from other fatal dog attacks in the USA, but they are still fatal dog attacks in the USA. [[User:Chrisrus|Chrisrus]] ([[User talk:Chrisrus|talk]]) 01:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for this, it's very interesting and would make a fine contribution to the article. Please reconsider your position and go ahead and add this information about Fatal Dog Attacks in the USA of the Ada Claire type. Why should they be excluded? Yes, they are different from other fatal dog attacks in the USA, but they are still fatal dog attacks in the USA. [[User:Chrisrus|Chrisrus]] ([[User talk:Chrisrus|talk]]) 01:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

== Additional Studies ==

There are two additional studies that go unmentioned, that are worth inclusion. The first is from the Puppycide Database Project, here:
https://puppycidedb.com/analysis.html#dog-bite-death-rates

The second is from the National Canine Research Council, here:
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/reported-bites-decreasing/

The two studies use death certificates; national vital statistics report, WISQARS, and a few other primary sources. [[User:Jaydubya93|Jay Dubya]] ([[User talk:Jaydubya93|talk]]) 21:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:10, 16 November 2014

Clear Case of misIdentification.

April 20 Golden retriever-Labrador-mix Aiden McGrew 2 months Killed by family's dog.[238]..

When you research all the articles you find out the dog is 1 year old and 35 lbs. Most articles state that it is some sort of retriever. A golden retriever would weigh twice this.

http://fourleggedfriendsandenemies.blogspot.com/2012/04/dorchester-county-infant-dies-from.html

shows a comparison of a Duck Tolling Retriever. A duck tolling retriever average weight is 37–44 lb for the female which this dog was reported to be. This is not original research it is just reading various articles. Regardless it is fairly clear that it is not a Golden mix. I will change the classification to a retriever mix, as that is what the majority of articles claim it to be.Mantion (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no evidence this was a golden mix as nothing in the dog is consistent with a golden retriever I will correct the information in the chart. Mantion (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Chrisrus (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Why is there a talk page if people do not use it? I updated this information once again as the facts in articles clearly indicate it is not a golden retriever even though some early articles called it a golden retriever. Based on the research of the blog above it is clear that the dog was either a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever or possibly a mix. The latest and most complete articles refer to the dog as "some sort of retriever mix". The page of Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever states, "It is the smallest of the retrievers, and is often mistaken for a small Golden Retriever." Please use the talk page before making edits.Mantion (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the picture of the dog in question and the pictures of Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever dog show contestants and I think we can stand on WP:SKYISBLUE here. Everyone should just be reasonable and allow the article to say that it is clearly a picture of a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever. Other than the color, the picture of the dog that killed that child could be the same individual as the dog that won Best of Breed. Chrisrus (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot substitute your own opinion on the breed of dog when the referenced citation says it is a "[insert breed name here]" for the following reasons:
  1. WP:SKYISBLUE says you don't have to cite the "obvious" - however, if you do cite a WP:RS source and it says one thing, WP:SKYISBLUE does not give carte blanche to substitute your own judgement if you disagree. For example, here is the URL to a photo of a ""golden retriever"" - how different is this dog from the dog that killed the child? Is the dog in the referenced photo a golden retriever mix? The rescue organization seemed to think it was, just the authorities thought the dog they had was one as well.
  2. You fail WP:NOR by saying, "I have looked at the picture of the dog and the pictures of Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever dog show contestants and I think...." That is (by definition) original research if you researched what NSDTR's looked like before substituting your own opinion for the WP:RS source. If you have another WP:RS source that says it was a different kind of dog, find the source, reference it, and we can discuss it; as it is, reference blog fails WP:RS standards so you've nothing to stand on except your own original research. The tables in the list say, "News organizations reported..." not "Wikipedia editors theorize..." so you should probably stick to what the news organizations reported.
  3. Even if the referenced blog met WP:RS standards, it only says, "Although they say it's a Golden Retriever mix, it looks more like a Nova Scotia mix to me. But I agree it's a Retriever mix of some sort." That seems like a pretty thin reed to disregard a WP:RS source that saw the actual dog rather than a blogger that saw only pictures of the dog.
  4. The breed standard weight for a female golden retriever is 55-65 lbs. A 45-lb dog would probably not win in the show ring but could still be a golden retriever. For example, my own purebred golden retriever weighs 85 lbs (+10 lbs over breed standard) but he is still a golden retriever.

Bottom line: follow your sources rather than your own opinions. Astro$01 (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you identify a Beagle or a German Shepherd or some other common breed just by looking at pictures? Do you know what this animal below is? If so, how do you know? If not, could someone else, someone familiar with the breed? The WP:RSes on the dog you will see if you Google Images "Aiden McGrew" do call it a "retriver mix" but in context they don't say it in with a great degree of confidence. There's no reason to think they had ever seen a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever before, either. They were as confident as most people would be about the animal below, "it's some kind of retriever, that's for sure, but I don't know what kind". The reporters were clearly not overly concerned with determining the exact breed, there were far, far, far, more important things for them to focus on. They didn't seem to be declaring the last word on the matter in their expert opinion or something. We're supposed to serve the reader, be reasonable, and care more about truth than anything else.

Chrisrus (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you need to reverse your change. Your argument does not hold against the Wikipedia policy on verifiability (WP:Verifiability) because what you did is not verifiable per the policy. Astro$01 (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)i[reply]
It's not my edit; I didn't do it; I just agreed. Chrisrus (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but the View History for this article shows the following:
18:42, 25 February 2013‎ Chrisrus (talk | contribs)‎ . . (118,117 bytes) (-7)‎ . . (Undid revision 540230899 by Astro$01 (talk)seetalk) (undo)
This tells me you undid the revision in which I removed the designation as a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever. I did this for the reasons I have mentioned above (e.g., failed WP:RS, failed WP:Verifiability). If you agree (after reviewing the referenced policies) that my revision is consistent with the policies, perhaps you would reverse your own edit? If you think labeling the dog as a NSDTR is consistent with the policies and the citation, please explain why. Thanks! :) Astro$01 (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about a compromise? We could label it a Retriever; "apparently a NSDTR".

As Jimmy Wales once said (not about this, but something similar): "You are wrong about the rules of Wikipedia. Everyone who thinks it is better to have an error in Wikipedia rather than correct information is always wrong at all times. There is nothing more important than getting it right. I'm glad that we're finally rid of the "verifiability, not truth" nonsense - but it's going to take a while before people really fully grasp what that means." Jimbo Wales 11:36, 25 September 2012 Chrisrus (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Verifiability policy is what it is. Specifically,
"In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."
I don't see how your proposed compromise complies with this policy as you have not shown that your wording is verifiable. Astro$01 (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why can’t we use the photos and videos themselves as WP:RSes? I want to cite the images themselves and not the accompanying text because, even though they are WP:RS, there’s the question of how reasonable it is to assume that they got the breed of the dog right. I mean, after all, the ability to identify a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever, while not a particularly difficult ability to come by, is not widespread, because it’s an obscure breed; and so not an ability that can be assumable by us of the reporters who called it a Golden/Labrador mix. We should go by the images about the breed, not the text. These are news reporters, not presidents of the kennel club or some such expert whose judgement of obscure dog breeds can be relied upon. Combined with the images of the NSDTR from the Best in Breed completion, held side-by-side, the fact “Retriever, apparently a NSDTR” might be confidently cited. Chrisrus (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, one point at a time:
  • You cannot use a photo or video unless the photo or video itself makes the identification of the dog in question because photo-interpretation by a wiki-editor does not constitute verification. In this case, the text says "golden retriever-Labrador mix" so it is unlikely the accompanying photo would have a caption making a different identification, and this is in fact the case. The photo caption does not identify the dog, so you cannot use it for verification.
  • The reporter did not identify the dog: he merely reported what the "authorities said" (that is what "reporters" do):
"The boy, Aiden McGrew, was apparently pulled from an infant's swing and his legs torn off by the golden retriever-Labrador mix inside the family's mobile home on Sandpit Road, authorities said [emphasis added]."
  • Who are the authorities? Two are mentioned in the article:
  • "“This is about as bad as it can get for a police officer,” Dorchester County Sheriff L.C. Knight said at an afternoon news conference."
  • "An animal control officer caged the family's two dogs and a few chickens that the family also kept in this remote area east of Cottageville."
  • The full photo caption says, "The two dogs of the McGrew family were taken away by a Dorchester County animal control officer Friday after one mauled an infant in his home near Ridgeville."
I think the story establishes that at least one professional animal control officer was able to examine the live dog at close quarters when the two dogs were taken and held in custody. It is highly likely they made the identification for the Sheriff to relate at his news conference (that is how presenters prepare for news conferences). You may not agree with their decision, but I don't think you have any basis to claim that "the authorities" did not have someone knowledgeable about dog breeds available.
  • You cannot say "apparently a NSDTR" since nothing verifies that claim.
  • I added a "Citation Needed" flag to the claimed NSDTR identification until you can find one. Astro$01 (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We mustn't knowingly include false information into Wikipedia; that'd be wrong. If we can't say what we have discovered the breed to be because we can't find a way to just cite images alone, we should just say "retriever" because that's the only thing everyone agrees about, with perhaps an explanitory footnote that it has been called a Golden/Lab mix but is apparently not, it's apparently a NSDTR. Please agree that the dog we see when we Google Images "Aiden McGrew," alongside the picture of the dogs in the Best of Breed competition, the dogs are apparently of the same breed, if a different color. Google Images some Golden/Lab mixes, they look as you'd expect and not like this dog or the confirmed NSDTRs, but this dogs appears just like the confirmed NSDTRs. Combine this with the fact that it's such an obscure breed, so one wouldn't expect these people to have recognized it, and you can see it appears to be a clear case of misidentification. It's not just me; others have pointed this out before: that dog was not a Golden/Lab mix. Every once in a while we find wrong information in WP:RSes, and the only rules that matter are to seek truth, serve the reader, and always be reasonable. Sometimes Wikipedians discover that WP:RSes are wrong and we have to work out among us what to do about it, not just stand on outdated interpretations of "Verifiability, not Truth". As Jimbo says, we aren't just "transcription monkeys"; we are to exercise editorial judgement; not just pass along mistakes in RSes. Chrisrus (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have circled back to earlier arguments, so I've introduced my concern as a topic on the "No original research" notice board: Wikipedia:NORN#Dog breed identification. Astro$01 (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Just for the record, because you chose that venue, your objection is purely on WP:OR grounds; Is there also a verifiability noticeboard? You don't plan to argue that the WP:RSes not apparently wrong; we as Wikipedians must just follow the sources. Chrisrus (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough: WP:Verifiability points to the WP:RSN reliable sources noticeboard, so I have posted a question there at WP:RSN#Dog Breed Identification. -- Astro$01 (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has no consensus for the change to mention a breed of dog not mentioned in the sources

This has been brought up at Jimbo's talkpage, the OR Noticeboard and now the RS noticeboard. Do not place a breed of dog in the tables without a source. This has been established to be clear OR and not a clear misidentification.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have acted hastily. Please first teach yourself to recognize a NSCTR and a Lab/Golden mix and then look at the dog in question, especially the raw feed video. While it should probably not just say it's a NSDTR and nothing more just like that, instead of the compromises we'd been discussing, you again have it simply stating that the dog was a Golden/Lab mix, and while you are may be right that there is no clear concensus that it's a NSDTR, neither is there a clear consensus that it was a Golden/Lab mix. Some of the WP:RSes call it a retriever mix, only, and don't assert what kind of mix, so there is no concensus in the RSes that it was Golden/Lab, either. I will edit it so it just says "retriever" for now and let the discussion continue. The only consensus is that it's a retriever of some kind. Chrisrus (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources do not require a consensus to summarize their information unless there is evidence in the form of a reliable reference to the contrary. You are now edit warring to continue this dispute. There is no consensus to do anything more than what the sources claim. Period. Please stop disrupting the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have two friends with dogs that look exactly like a NSDTR. One is indeed a mix. Half duck tolling retriever. The other dog is not related at all and they look almost identical. The one that is not a NSDTR is actually part Chow. Similar color, hair and look in the face...but an unrelated dog. It happens and we don't get to use are opinions in this manner to alter inforamtion, especially after a consensus shows that the RS should not be ignored in favor of OR.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can mix Chow and retrievers if you want, you will not get a dog that looks "exactly" like an NSDTR.
Golden/lab mixes are and look pretty much exactly how you might expect: some alot like a Lab, some more like a Golden, and everywhere in between; they are not going to jump outside that continuum and produce a NSDTR morph, and outlier among retrievers, with a very distinctive, more Spitz-like skullshape, distinctive, sunken eyes, very distinctive lavender/purple skin and tongue mouth coloration. Lucky was no Golden/Lab mix. Goldens and Labs have the familiar skull shapes and other features common to the rest of the closely-related modern dogs we call "Retrievers" in their names except the NSDTR.
We shouldn't just say that Lucky was a Golden/Lab mix and just leave it at that, because when you delve into it, it appears to have been a mistake. We don't know how the dog got into the shelter where the family found it, but people often drop dogs off there, no questions asked. People at shelters wouldn't have recognized a NSDTR, nor the family, nor the authorities or the reporters. There are thousands of breeds and this is a very rare and obscure one. Only some RSes call it a Golden/Lab mix. Many just say what you'd expect anyone to say when seeing a NSDTR: some kind of strange retriever mix. As such, confidence that Lucky was a Lab/Golden mix is unwarranted.
Likely errors in WP:RSes should not be passed on to the readers if there is reasonable doubt they are true, despite WP:SYN. The most important thing is to get the facts right, which is why WP:IGNOREALLRULES was written. There must at least be some footnote or something, at least. Let's find a some kind of compromise to improve it. What was the matter with just calling it a retriever? Everyone agrees about that! Given these rational concerns and reasonable doubts, we shouldn't just call it a Lab/Golden mix and leave it at that. Chrisrus (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Now you are telling editors what mixes will result in or not. I see. Sorry to tell you but the dog doesn't agree.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The blog is from an expert in the field that pointed out the flaw in this specific instance. It wasn't original research. The majority of articles state that it is a "retriever mix" of some kind. The information provided by the blogger is verifiable. Multiple news articles said the dog weighted 35lbs, and looked like a small golden retriever which is exactly what the blogger pointed out and exactly what the wiki page on duck tolling retriever. I did not make that web page I found that web page investigating this specific attack. I am sorry if some of you feel all blogs are irrelevant, this might be why Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. If you decide to ignore the majority of the articles that state "retriever mix" of some kind that is fine, but don't ignore an expert who took the time to point out an obvious flaw for those who care about accuracy. So if a news paper updates their article then would you allow the correct information to be shared?

Mantion (talk) 08:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A personal blog cannot be used as a reliable source for facts.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky not a Golden/Lab mix

@Amad, Yes. For example, as everybody knows, a Chihuahua/Pekingese mix may look all kinds of crazy ways, it’s never going to look exactly like a Basset Hound because that lies outside the rational limits of possibility. The offspring always fall into something between the one and the other, nothing outside.
Don’t take it from me; research it yourself: Google as many images of Golden/Lab mixes as you want: you will see what I am saying is true: Golden/lab skulls are just not that different from either a pure Lab or pure Golden, but different from Lucky’s NSDTR-shaped skull. There just isn’t very much if any significant skull shape difference between Golden and Lab skulls. So there’s no room for a NSDTR-shaped skull between the two.
Now, I accept that we are not going to be able to say that, in this case, unlike most of the others, we have a very good look at this dog in raw footage and pictures, which we can use instead of the texts to confirm the dog’s breed. We can separate pictures from their accompanying texts, and invite the reader to look form s/himself and see if it doesn’t look for all the world like a NSDTR in every way. That, I am told, would be a violation of WP:OR, which can be used as an excuse for keeping apparently false info into the encyclopedia.
But because Lucky’s NSDTR-shaped isn’t between a Golden skull and a Lab skull, this is an obvious mistake in the RSes. You don’t have to see it as clearly as I do, but please do change your mind by looking yourself and believe that, by saying Lucky was a Lab/Golden mix, based on the extraordinary amount of footage and still photos we have of the dog, it looks as if source was wrong about him being a Lab/Golden mix –he couldn’t have been one.
Let’s agree, compromise. Therefore, not to call him that but rather another of the things that the RSes also call him; a retriever, or if we must, retriever mix. Not all of the references quote the Animal Control officer who called it that – “retriever mix” is every bit as citable as saying something that is at least highly dubious as calling Lucky a Lab/Retriever mix.
This is a clear case of misidentification and should not stand in the article as it stands there now because no one should ever enter apparent mistakes into Wikipedia. When there is an apparent mistake in the RSes, we are not obliged to pass apparent mistakes on to the reader. We can figure something else out: if we choose to, we can add some kind of footnote or caveat or something. We can word it differently. It’s what editors do; we are not transcription monkeys. Chrisrus (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I, and many other editors have already stated, find a reliable secondary source that makes these claims.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/aiden-mcgrew-killed-dismembered-dog_n_1442092.html , for example, says "retriever mix", with neither "Lab" nor "Golden". Chrisrus (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, I will use this citation ti change it back to "retriever". Chrisrus (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is a start. One source (The Post and Courier[1]) cites the authorities and says "golden retriever-Labrador mix"; the other (Associated Press, as aggregated by The Huffington Post[2]) also cites authorities and says "retriever mix." It seems to me the sources do not contradict each other, but rather differ only in specificity, with the local paper (The Post and Courier) being more specific than the wire service (AP). That doesn't seem like a reason to change the article. For example, if one WP:RS source says, "killed by a dog" without citing the breed and another says, "killed by a Rottweiler" then I would go with the more specific of the two. Astro$01 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or you would, unless there were reliably sourced direct evidence that showed that it wasn't a Rottweiler. Chrisrus (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so please let us know when you find the evidence that contradicts The Post and Courier. Astro$01 (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to expect a greater degree of accuracy from the Post and Courier than the Associated Press. The AP looked at the evidence and decided, quite rightly, to leave out the "Golden" and the "Lab", so I'm going to use it's breed ID and use the Huffpost to cite it. Chrisrus (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have not met your own criteria for changing the article as the nothing in the Associated Press article excludes a golden retriever-labrador mix (they are both retrievers). The two sources are in general agreement; one is merely more specific. The sources did not say why they used different descriptions, so an equally valid hypothetical is that The Post and Courier serves a local market while Associated Press is distributed world-wide: The Post and Courier thought its local audience would be interested in the specific breed mix, while AP thought it's audience would not be interested. Each description passed each organization's editorial fact checking so the "golden retriever-labrador" description is accurate from an encyclopedic content point of view, and greater specificity is still preferable. Astro$01 (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the IP reporters chose not to call Lucky a “Golden/Lab” shows not everyone thought he was one. So neither should we. That Lucky was a retriever is not in question and has never been in question. Everyone knows he was a retriever. The thing is, what kind of retreiver?

Sources disagree whether Lucky was a Goldenlab, but we choose to pass along this information as if that were not so. Why? Do we have some reason to trust the P&C story over the others? Do we have some reason to believe that the P&C was right to be so specific? Do we believe the others wrong to have been more conservative? Why have we chosen the P&C over the other sources that don’t agree that Lucky was so definitely, so specifically a Goldenlab and so clearly not another kind of retriever?

There is reason to doubt the P&C story's term for Lucky is the best:

For example, if Lucky was a known Goldenlab, then why don’t the sources agree he was one? If everyone from the shelter he came from to the family who so tragically lived with him for three weeks to the animal control officers, policemen, reporters and so on all agreed he was a goldenlab, why don’t all our sources also so agree?

And another thing: Lucky doesn’t look like a Goldenlab. Don’t take this from me, research it yourself: Unsurprisingly, Goldenlabs look like Goldens or Labs or something in between the two. And structurally, you will see that there isn’t much difference between a Golden and a Lab, while Lucky had a spitz type skull. He didn’t share the standard skull that Labs and Goldens and Chesapeke Bays and such share. And Labs and Goldens are both quite a bit longer than they are tall, while Lucky just a squarish dog. As it’s highly unlikely to get those features from combining a lab and a Golden, it’s unlikely at best he was a Goldenlab.

Speaking in general about this article, we should, when sources disagree about the breed, in order to err on the side of safety and therefore be more likely to be correct, pass along only the more general, less specific dog-type information. The article should pass along only the information about the dog breed that all the RSes agree about, not the controversial info, if we must choose. If one source calls a dog X and another calls it more specifically a X1, why should we go with the most specific one as a matter of course? For example, if one article says a dog was specifically a Pitbull and another calls it a “Pitbull-type”, unless there is some reason to think that the more specific term is the more accurate term, then we should go with the vaguer one.

This is especially true in this case, as there is extensive reliably sourced video and photographic evidence that shows that the P&C may have been wrong to be so confident Lucky was a Goldenlab.

So let’s have it just say “retriever,” then, and exclude neither the possibility that it was a Golden/Lab mix nor that it might have been a purebred retriever of a breed so rare and obscure that it would have been highly unlikely to be recognized by non-experts like the authors of the RSes and the people they interviewed for the story: an NSDTR. Chrisrus (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, one argument at a time:

  1. The fact that the IP reporters chose not to call Lucky a “Golden/Lab” shows not everyone thought he was one. So neither should we....

    Your conclusion does not follow from the fact. I have already pointed out that editorial fact checkers approved both The Post and Courier and AP article. You cannot say with any certainty why they are different; however, both are factually correct per WP:Reliable Sources. The articles do not contradict each other - it is merely a question of specificity.

  2. Speaking in general about this article, we should, when sources disagree about the breed, in order to err on the side of safety and therefore be more likely to be correct, pass along only the more general, less specific dog-type information.

    This is not the case at all. For example, consider the entry for Dixie Jennings. The article says she was killed by a Rottweiler because the cited source[3] says so, even though a different source says she was killed by a dog without specifying the breed.[4]. We did not say "unknown breed" just because I found a source that didn't mention that the dog was a Rottweiler. This is an exactly analogous situation.

  3. And another thing: Lucky doesn’t look like a Goldenlab...

    This is irrelevant because it stems from WP:Original research, as determined by consensus (see above). Given the fact that you keep using this argument to justify changing the article, despite the contrary consensus on the WP and RS noticeboards, I have to conclude that your efforts here are merely an attempt to foist your own point of view regarding the dog's breed on this article, contrary to the WP:NPOV policy. Please stop. Astro$01 (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add to the details that there are extensive photos available and the dog's appearance is that of a light-colored NSDTR citing the specific part in the one RS where there is a long, clear raw video feed of Lucky moving around in the cage, but I can't find that video, although glimpses of it were used in some of the news reports. Chrisrus (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article meet Wikipedia standards for Neutral Point of View?

It seems that the the talk page for this article raises many questions about the neutrality of this article. (For example, see the sections "Appropriateness for an Encyclopedia", "National Canine Research Council", "requested change", and "2011 is way off".) These concerns don't really look like they've been addressed.

This article also seems like it might be inherently non-neutral because it strongly implies two things that may or may not be correct: 1. All of these incidents were "attacks." Although these incidents were reported in the news media as deaths that involved dog bites, they are not all necessarily attacks. Although most or all are probably attacks, some could have been accidents (e.g. rough play with a child) or self-defense when a dog was under attack by a human. 2. The article also implies that the dog's breed is the most important or the sole factor playing into the attack. Breed has its own column in the tables. Other factors about the dog are not mentioned. I'm not sure how these issues could be addressed to meet WP:NPOV standards. With these issues unaddressed, it's unclear if this page meets the high standards we strive for on Wikipedia, and I've nominated it to be checked for its neutrality. Onefireuser (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

The short answer is that the article meets WP:POV standards.
  1. "Appropriateness for an Encyclopedia" was resolved under Proposed Deletion. The consensus was to keep the article in the form it has today.
  2. "National Canine Research Center" was addressed. The consensus was that the National Canine Research Center failed WP:RS.
  3. "requested change" regarding breed identification was rejected by consensus in 2011.
  4. "2011 is way off" has been resolved by ensuring all of the fatal dog attacks for 2011 have WP:RS sources identified.
  5. A fatal dog attack occurs when a person dies and the cause of death is at least partially attributable to being attacked by a dog, as reported in WP:RS sources (almost universally in news media).
  6. The article makes no implication one way or the other about the importance of dog breed in an attack. It merely states the breed of the dog or dogs involved in the attack, if this is known. This point was addressed under requested change.
  7. There is an entire article on the subject of Dog attack (which references this list). The issues raised regarding fatal "non-attacks" (e.g., "rough play with a child") and the importance of dog breed are more appropriately addressed in articles on Dog attack or various dog breeds rather than in a list. Astro$01 (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason (apart from tediousness and difficulty) that it wouldn't be better if it listed like this:

  1. Date
  2. Place
  3. Name
  4. Age
  5. m/f
  6. Breed
  7. annotations

By listing the time and place first, we follow through on the title that this is a list of events, not of people or dogs: a list of things that happened at a time and place and to a real person who had a name and age, and then what specific kind of dog it was, and then any explanation as there might be if it were written out in full sentences.

Scrolling up and reading over the above discussion, and having seen previous discussions, I think listing in this way would be probably get general consensus and also satisfy those who feel that this list done this way overly emphasizes the importance of the type of dog involved over other circumstances, such as whether or not the WP:RSes indicate that the dogs had been abused or any other such contributing factor.

I've created a table or two on Wikipedia in my day, but this is a job which would take me far more work than I could dedicate to it myself, but if agreed here we could take it to technical support/tables and they might be able to re-order the columns easily. Chrisrus (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could solve this issue simply by renaming the article to make it clear that this is a list of dog breeds involved in fatal attacks. Then we can avoid the entire issue of whether or not breed is an important issue in determining which dogs will attack. We could rename the article something along the lines of "List of breeds of dogs involved in fatal attacks in the United States." Otherwise, if this is simply a list of fatal dog attacks, why are we giving breed such great prominence in the summary tables? Onefireuser (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

That's a pretty good idea. One thing it's got going for it would be simplicity: Just move it to "List of fatal dog attacks by breed or "by type of dog" or some such. Very little work involved there, but laziness isn't the best argument for making a move, but it'd do the job. Chrisrus (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What if we did it this way:
Date Place Victim's name Victim's age Category of dog Circumstances
January 21 Chicago Megan Stack 2 years Labrador Retriever Early in the morning, her father heard her scream and ran downstairs to find the dog biting her head. The dog, "Toby", was 80 pounds, eight years old, and had been their family dog for nine months. She died of several bites to the head and neck. Experts expressed surprise, noting that the breed had been well-known for its gentleness and for being good with children. [1]
What do you think?
One improvement is exchanging the problematic terms "breed" and "type" for the more accurate "category"
In addition, this way conforms more to the normal way people tell stories about events, including news reports: "On this date, in this place, this person (age), was killed by a (dog)." Then we go on to tell them any more about it that we might know.
Other columns I have thought of might include
  1. whether there was any sign of neglect or abuse of the dog, such as being left tethered all the time,
  2. whether the dog had been trained for violence,
  3. whether the dog had been well-treated
  4. consequence for the dog,
  5. Any charges brought.
Please comment as to whether you agree that
  1. this is a better,
  2. how it could be further improved or done otherwise
  3. whether this would allow us to remove the NPOV template, or at least constitute progress toward that goal.
  4. any other constructive thoughts

Chrisrus (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem like a great step toward moving the article more into compliance with the Five Pillars, especially if some of the relevant columns you mentioned are added. Chained/Unchained status seems like a good idea for a column because that comes up frequently in the circumstances. Level of supervision when the incident involves a minor might also be a column that we want to add. We also probably want to change the language from "attack" to something along the lines of "dog-bite related fatality" since we've already determined that we're including at least a few incidents that aren't attacks. In light of the recent changes to the article and these changes that it looks like we'll be making, I'll go ahead and remove the NPOV tag.Onefireuser (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

Please, if you would, as I have above, construct the list for 1988 as you might have the entire list be done, and post it here so we can decide how to re-do it for the entire list. Chrisrus (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


One option:

Date Victim's name Victim's age Dog Breed or Type Dog Gender Neutered Size Chained Circumstances
January 21 Megan Stack 2 years Labrador Retriever Unknown Unknown 80 lbs No Early in the morning, her father heard her scream and ran downstairs to find the dog biting her head. She died of several bites to the head and neck. The dog was 8 years old and had been with the family for 9 months. [2]

Certainly, other options could work as well.Onefireuser (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

After posting that last formatting option, I have to say it's pretty noisy with all those columns, and it might be verging toward WP:PRIMARY by picking and choosing factors to include. I think a much better option would be to simplify the table to include 3 columns for the data of which we can be pretty sure the RSs have correct (date, name, age). The other relevant details could be included in the fourth column. Here we could include the details that are important in a dog's propensity to bite and do damage but about which we have less reliable information from the primary sources: Breed, size, gender, socialization, training, health, reproductive status, quality of ownership, etc.

This would simultaneously address issues of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and factual accuracy.

So for 1988 we would have:

Date Victim's name Victim's age Details
January 21 Megan Stack 2 years Early in the morning, her father heard her scream and ran downstairs to find the dog biting her head. She died of several bites to the head and neck. The dog was an 80-lb Labrador Retriever. It was 8 years old and had been with the family for 9 months. [3]

What do you think? I feel that this would bring the article into much better compliance with the purpose and philosophy (eg WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and factual accuracy) of Wikipedia.Onefireuser (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

Well done. The first one was better. I'm about to do something and I'd like you to watch. First: I create this: List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States/Revision and make that link go blue with someplaceholding text. Next I'm going to copy and paste the list itself from this article into that revision space. Brb... Chrisrus (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's ready to do the column headings. Are we decided how we want it to look in the end? Chrisrus (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with having all those different columns is that we don't have reliable sources to fill them. We will be forced to make guesses and perform our own original research to resolve conflicting and ambiguous sources. How will we address the fact that different news articles give drastically different accounts of the dog's weight? The dog's gender is rarely mentioned; will we have to use the name as a surrogate for gender? How will we handle the ambiguity surrounding the dog's genetic background? If we have all of these items in their own columns then we are forced to make determinations about things that we have no way of knowing. We may end up hiding some of the uncertainty that is present in the primary sources, in which case this article will have a problem with factual accuracy at best, and with NPOV at worst.Onefireuser (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]
Those are good points, but just because a column is there doesn't mean we have to use it. We could just say "unknown" or "N/A" or "?". It'd be enlightening for a read to see that so many reports mention the category of dog, for example, but many or most or whatever the case may turn out to be, don't mention whether the dog is intact or not, or whether the dog was given regular socialization, attention, and socialization, which, as some (such as perhaps you) will be quick to point out, are perhaps better predictors of fatal attacks than the category of dog. Chrisrus (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great points. As long as the inclusion of these columns doesn't force editors to try to perform original research such as inferring gender from the dog's name or trying to to determine breed from news pictures (eg the Duck Tolling Retriever), then they seem like a good idea. I just hope that they are not inadvertently abused by editors and end up hiding the ambiguity that exists in the primary sources.Onefireuser (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

Ok, here I've consolidated them all, look here: List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States/Revision It'll be a lot easier if we put them together so we only have to do this once. The first column should be the year, so that people who would rather not view by year can view by place, dog category, age, or whatever, and see the whole list at once. It's going to be an easier project if we only have one list instead of separate lists for each year, and better because then people can order it by date, age, dog, etc.

Next we want to it first column year, then date, place, name, age, dog, comments. That way it'll finally no longer a list of people killed by dogs in the US, it'll be a list of events: things that happened at a time, place, to a person of this age, by this category of dog(s), and what else we know about it.

If that's agreed I have to ask for help from some programmer. Chrisrus (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The table at the Revision link isn't displaying properly for me. Can you double check the formatting?Onefireuser (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]
List of fatal dog attacks in the United States/Revision. Can you see it? It's just the bare list, with only the first item aligned. We have to get the columns across the top first and then have the rest aligned. Chrisrus (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been moved again, here. Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States/Revision2. It seemed like the right place. The place I first did it was not appropriate. Chrisrus (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone please follow this here: Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Dogs/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States/Revision2. We need help. Chrisrus (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should Maryann Hanula be included in this list?

From the referenced sources, it sounds like she was the victim of a vicious dog attack, but that she luckily survived. She died 7 months later at age 73.[4] Her obituary states that she "passed away peacefully."[5] The referenced cited do not seem adequate to include her in this Wikipedia page. Although she was seriously bitten and her death may have been related to that. Do sources do not clearly support this being a "fatal attack." If we include it in this article, it seems like we are either doing original research or reporting our own personal point of view.Onefireuser (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

It does seem like a big synthesis issue - better to just remove it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no cited references that state Hanula died from the dog bite injuries she received 7 months prior. Whoever placed Hanula on this list made an assumption that cannot be substaniated. 10:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauro1929 (talk • contribs)

I have removed Hanula from this list until it can be referenced that her death was attributed to the injuries she received 7 months prior. Mauro1929 (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having second thoughts about this decision. I've just Googled her name around and, here we have a woman that was apparently healthy and then brutally had her legs almost ripped off her and then went through one terrible operation after another to save her legs which involved all kinds of iron bars and artificial bones and bone transplants and fought and fought and held on but it was just too much and she finally died seven months later. Interviewees close to her said that it was obvious she'd finally succumbed to her dog bite wounds. Please, I'm asking you to please watch, read, and look at everything carefully and tell me honestly how much doubt you really have about whether this event was a fatal dog attack in the USA. Chrisrus (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding future disputes and improving page's adherence to NPOV

This comment is partially in response to the current discussion about the John Reynolds incident, but I am giving it a new section because it addresses a larger issue about the article. Perhaps we could more easily reach consensus if we first addressed another aspect of the article: Most of the discussion on this talk page has revolved around breed. Most of that has been related to pit bulls, because most of the dogs on the page are identified as pit bulls. But even when another breed is identified (eg Golden vs NSDTR) there is lots of disagreement. Part of the reason there is so much disagreement about breed is because of the way it is presented in the article: Breed is the only characteristic of the dog given its own column. This should be changed. In addition to making it easier to resolve disputes, there are 2 important reasons to remove the Breed column and move that information to Circumstances:

1. Undue weight given to dog breed: Again, breed is the only characteristic of the dog given its own column. Essentially all expert organizations are in agreement that breed is not the most important characteristic of the dog to consider in aggressive incidents, yet we present it as if it is the ONLY characteristic to consider. A few examples of organizations that support this view are:

CDC[6]
American Humane Association[7]
ASPCA[8]
Humane Society[9]

2. Since very few of these cases involve purebred/pedigreed dogs, it is difficult/impossible for us to verify the dog's true ancestry. In most cases, the best we can hope to say is "The owner said the dog was Labrador-mix" or "To the Sheriff, the dog looked like a Rottweiller." Given the inherent difficulty of identifying breed by visual inspection, it does not seem like those statements would qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia. As Chrisrus has pointed out, the best we can hope to do in most cases is to say definitively what breed the dog is NOT.

If we move breed information to the Circumstances section, we will avoid these problems. Onefireuser (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

Actually, this suggestion makes more sense than anything else I have read on this page. Lots of the circumstances (who owned the dog, whether the dog was loose or chained, etc.) we have much more factual information on then we do what breed of dog it was. So why are circumstances that are more factual listed as less relevant than a circumstance (i.e., breed) that we are almost always going to argue about and not ever be sure. Mauro1929 (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I was beginning to think that no one was going to notice my suggestion. I'm interested to hear what other people think.Onefireuser (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

Does anyone else have any feedback or compelling reasons why "Breed" should be retained as the sole dog-specific circumstance that gets its own column? If the purpose of this article truly is to serve as a "List of fatal dog attacks," we can avoid the whole issue of Golden vs NSDTR and Pit Bull vs pit bull vs APBT vs Bulldog by folding that information into the Circumstances column.Onefireuser (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

I agree. This page is about people who have been killed by dogs, not about what breeds of dogs have killed people. I think that after the date, the victim's name is the most important detail that should be listed, along with their age. I also wonder why do we have breed here (of which we know little about) and yet we do not list location (i.e., city, state) ?? Also, I think we should try and be more accurate about the circumstances, not just the breed, but who owned the dog and if the dog was loose, chained, etc. Mauro1929 (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the dog was chained up or not goes to something important but doesn't really get at the point as well as whether it was, as one good but biased sources calls it, a "resident" dog, one that just is fed and watered (homefully) but just left there without getting attention or activity needed to stop a dog from going insane. It wouldn't matter so much that the dog was kept captive on a chain or inside an apartment or wherever it's confined; if it doesn't at least get some exercise and maybe something to do with it's mind and senses seems to be the important thing being gotten at as to whether a dog is going to kill the next thing that comes into reach.
You are right that "breed" is a problematic, somewhat arbitrary term. I hope this problem was solved by changing it to "category". Chrisrus (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should Robert Rochester be included in this list?

I've previously questioned whether Diane Jansen should be included in this list. Although Diane Jansen has still not been removed, if her case is to remain, should we add this nearly very similar case? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220280/Postman-suffers-fatal-cardiac-arrest-caused-dog-attack-carried-mail-rounds-week-before.html http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/19857677/posta Onefireuser (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

Neither Diane Jansen or Robert Rochester should be on this list. There has been no declaration in either case that the cause of death was due to dog bites. This list should be much more precise then it currently is. There are names on here of people who died from other causes and dog bites were only a contributory factor and other cases were dog bites were the direct cause of death. There are two completely different scenarios and should not be listed together as "fatal dog attacks." Mauro1929 (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He went through hell and was horribly mutilated and then had a heart attack. Is it reasonable to say it wasn't a fatal dog attack in the US because his heart wasn't strong enough to survive a prolonged mawling by a pit bull? I bet if it happened to me I'd have a heart attack too. Why do you want to remove him, a technicality? Chrisrus (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To which attack are you referring? The dog in the Robert Rochester case was a GSD, a breed that is only rarely called a "pit bull." Onefireuser (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]
Ok, German Shepherd, but that's not the point. The point is, he was being very brutally attacked when he had a heart attack. The question is why this is not being included. Have you read "Postman suffers fatal cardiac arrest 'caused by dog attack'? It's about how he died of a heart attack which was caused by a dog attack. Let's return this event to the article. Chrisrus (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This incident came up not because we were considering removing it, but because we were wondering why it hadn't been included in the first place. As far as I know, it was never added to the list, which seemed strange considering that the very similar Diane Jansen case had been included — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefireuser (talk • contribs) 15:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was fresh out of the hospital and recovering at home before the heart attack, three days, as I count, after the attack. With Jansen, her heart attack coincided with the attack, and we had an official cause of death that listed the attack as a contributing factor. I can't find an official cause of death for Rochester. Do you really want to include it? It's harder to tie the two events than in Jansen's case. Chrisrus (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another questionable case: Barbara Chambers

Here is another case that we haven't included, but it similar to the cases that are included: http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Insane-Great-Dane-Rips-Into-Owner.html http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dallasmorningnews/obituary.aspx?page=lifestory&pid=127282736#fbLoggedOut

I don't think this case should be included but it raises questions about why some other similar cases are included.Onefireuser (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

According to the Dallas County Medical Examiner the cause of the death of Ms. Chambers was death due to dog mauling. So yes, she should be included on this list. Mauro1929 (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like her death was ever reported on by the media (unless you count the obituary). Do you have a reliable source (eg People, Crossfire, CNN, etc) that says she died of a dog attack?Onefireuser (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

No, her death was NOT reported by the media (another reason the media is NOT a very good source for this page), but I can send you her autopsy report. Mauro1929 (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we show the readers the autopsy report? This one as they say is pretty "presumably" at least a contributing cause given the facts. Everyone on both sides of the dog bite blogosphere seems to agree, so why can't we? Chrisrus (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we done with this one? Chrisrus (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Does that mean you think we should include her or not include her?Onefireuser (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]
Well, I know from this: [[5]] that it was a dog attack in the USA, and this http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dallasmorningnews/obituary.aspx?page=lifestory&pid=127282736#fbLoggedOut, lets us know that she died, but what proof do we have that the two events were related? There are some pretty strong statements out there in the blogosphere and such insisting that it was a fatal dog attack, but they don't say how they know it was a fatal dog attack. So, no, not unless it can be shown somewhere that her death was connected to the dog attack, we shouldn't include it. If anyone can show any report that it was a fatal dog attack, that would be different, but I've been trying and it's all unsubstantiated claims. Chrisrus (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another potential fatal dog attack that we have not included in this list

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090701/NEWS/907019990 "Pope’s remains were found on his property late Monday night. Pickens County Sheriff David Abston said that it is unclear whether he died from natural causes, whether the dogs killed him or whether foul play was involved."Onefireuser (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

They ate him, but did they kill him? The article mentions the possibility of foul play, but murders of 97 year-olds are unlikely. 97-year-olds mostly go suddenly at any moment of natural causes. He could have laid there for a long time before the unfed dogs came sniffing around... The cause of death might be very hard to determine if a body has been largely eaten. Let's leave it off. (**SHUDDER!** What a horror movie working on this article is!) Chrisrus (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Chrisrus (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major problem with reliability of sources for this page

Editors, please review WP:RS with regards to the contents of this page. Some key quotes from WP:RS

  1. "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources."
  2. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."
  3. "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
  4. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact... News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefireuser (talk • contribs) 12:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."


See also WP:NOR:

  1. "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."


Since the entire list is sourced only from news reports, aspects of the article may not meet standards for WP:RS.Onefireuser (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser News reports are WP:RS, but not as RS as the peer-reviewed papers. So long as we warn the readers of the limitations and are on the lookout for signs that info may be wrong and react appropriately, there is nothing wrong with citing a news report. Chrisrus (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We've made major improvements and I think this is a  Done issue. Earlier when I had tried to address this and alert the reader to the type of references used, my efforts we're blocked by Astr01.Onefireuser (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

The Summary Tables must be removed

The information in the actual list is already on shaky ground because of the lack of reliable secondary sources. (Please see the Talk section above "Major problem with reliability of sources for this page").

The summary tables, which are based on the sketchy information in the list, are frankly inappropriate for Wikipedia. They are are original research and not exempted based on WP:CALC

Please see WP:NOR. Here are relevant quotes from that page:

  1. "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
  2. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
  3. "Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources."


So what we have in these summary table is: A synthesis of Wikipedia editors' interpretations of primary sources that barely meet the standards of WP:RS. We start out with media sources that are generally not from major newspapers. These sources are often vague or contradict each other or themselves. We then interpret these sources and enter our interpretation into the columns of the list. We then combine these interpretations into summary tables that do not reflect the uncertainty in the original sources or the uncertainty in our interpretations of those sources. This is completely appropriate for an independent blog, but it is clearly a violation of Wikipedia:Core_content_policies.Onefireuser (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]
We can and do summarize data all the time. Chrisrus (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we do. That, however, does not mean it is appropriate in this instance. Again, please refer to WP:CALC:

Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources.

In our case, the summary tables do not meet these criteria:
  1. The data on which the summary tables are built is already vague and inconsistent. Summarizing it covers up this uncertainty. For example, how would we handle the Tyler Jett case or the Aiden McGrew case in the summary tables?
  2. Since calculating statistics is not a basic process like adding numbers or converting units, there is no clear way of how to represent the data in an accurate way: For example, how do we determine categories of dogs? If we are not just going by breed, but are also going by type, should we combine all the retrievers together? Should we combine all "bully breeds" together? How do we handle mixed-breed dogs? In the peer-reviewed literature on dog-bite fatalities (eg the big CDC study) they specifically point out the difficulty in determining how to statistically summarize the data. They decided to summarize it in a few different ways and present them all. However, that is a research paper: original research. Playing around with statistics like that is not appropriate on Wikipedia.
So adding up the number of attacks like we do at the top of the entry for each year is allowed by WP:CALC but playing around with statistics, especially when the statistics are based on data that is itself poorly sourced, is not appropriate on Wikipedia.Onefireuser (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

RemovedOnefireuser (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

Like a lead summarizes the info in the article, these charts summarize the info in the lists. How does removing them constitute article improvement? How is the reader served by being denied them? How is the reader harmed by seeing them? The reader is served by these charts. It's easier to understand the data. Chrisrus (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is no "obvious, correct, and meaningful" and meaningful way to summarize the data. For some of the data, such as age of the victims, there are "obvious, correct, and meaningful" ways to summarize. So we could keep that summary table if people want to. However, for breed, we simply don't have a straightforward way to create a summary that does not involve our own interpretation of the data. This is because many reasons. A few of which are:
  • There is no clear way to handle mixed breed dogs in the tables. This is an issue that is discussed in the scholarly papers published on this subject.
  • There is no clear way to decide how to group breeds, types, or "categories" of dogs. Ultimately, the decision to present the data with certain breeds grouped together or not grouped together will show the data in a different light. Deciding which way to show the data is original research. Just look at the scholarly papers that we summarize. No one would say that they are not original research.
  • There is no clear way to handle conflicting or vague claims in the primary sources about breed. If one primary source says it was a Golden Retriever and another says it was a Duck Tolling Retriever, then we are engaging in original research when we decide what kind of dog we think it was.
  • Our sources are inherently unreliable when it comes to identifying mixed breed dogs. Many of the dogs on this page are of mixed breed. There is extensive scholarly research showing that even experts do a poor job of identifying the make-up of mixed breed dogs. Many of our sources rely on law enforcement or the public to identify mixed breed dogs. Even the ones that rely on Animal Control are guesses at best.
  • You can just look to this Wikipedia article for additional evidence of the difficulty of identifying mixed breed dogs. Look at the case of Tyler Jett. Media identified the dog several different breeds, leading Wikipedia editors to attempt to identify the breed themselves from grainy photographs. This is clearly original research.
If there were an "obvious, correct, and meaningful" way to present the data, I would be all for it, but I don't know of a way to do that. Does this make sense?Onefireuser (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]
Not at all. We have the ages and most common and second most common dog types by year, summarized from the list. What's wrong with that? Most summaries go at the end, so I'll place them there. Chrisrus (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why we don't see eye-to-eye on this. I'll think about it some more and get back to you.Onefireuser (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]
I've been gradually working to update the Summary Tables so that they reflect the data tables, however, I still feel that these summary tables (especially the category of dog table) are Original Research because there is no "obvious, correct, and meaningful" way to summarize the information about category of dog.Onefireuser (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

Is this done? The bot will want to archive it, but it has no "done" template. I think we've compromised by putting it at the end, where summaries normally go.

Unfortunately, I don't think we're done with this issue. Putting the tables at the end does not address the serious concerns about WP:OR that I've raised above. This is a core issue on Wikipedia and something we need to take seriously.Onefireuser (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]
Well, obviously all Wikipedia is is just one big summary of what's written elsewhere, so summarizing things is not bad to do. The guidelines and such you mention seem to me to be talking about drawing undue conclusions in summaries. Chrisrus (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The numerous issues related to WP:NOR with this section of the article have not been resolved. Therefore, in order to keep the page in line with WP:NOR, the Summary Tables are being removed. Please propose a way to resolve the numerous issues of Original Research mentioned above. Once those issues are resolved, we will be able to replace this valuable part of the article.Onefireuser (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

I don't agree. Those bulleted issues are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. There is nothign WP:NOR about summarizing. Summerizing is most of what Wikipedians are supposed do. Chrisrus (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:SUMMARYISNOTOR. Summary cannot be not WP:OR because, if it were, practically all we do here on Wikipedia would be WP:OR. Chrisrus (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:SUMMARYISNOTOR clearly states "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." It goes on to give an example, "For example, if a published source gives the numbers of votes cast for each candidate in an election, it is not original research to include percentages alongside the numbers, so long as it is a simple calculation and the vote counts all come from the same source. Deductions of this nature should not be made if they serve to advance a position." Thus, your decision to make a summary of all DBRFs by "mastiff type" dogs clearly does count as a simple mathematical summary. Similarly, your decision to group Pit Bulls, pit bull mixes, and pit bull type dogs into one group goes beyond a simply calculation and is not allowed on Wikipedia. We have been disagreeing on this for a while. You seem confident that what you are doing is in the best interest of Wikipedia. I also feel that what I am doing is in the best interest of Wikipedia. At this point, the best thing for us to do may be to bring this up with the NOR noticeboard.Onefireuser (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

In addition, as the tables stand currently, the percentages add up to more than 100%. For example, in 2013 they add up to 105%.

  • This section is a bit messy, so I'm just going to add a bullet here to separate out my comment. I have to say I'm very much in Onefireuser's camp here. My understanding is that the summary tables are numerical sums of the number of incidents in each of the reported-incident tables earlier in the article. If that's the case, that's very inappropriate, because the sampling methodology for those tables is effectively, "Someone found a reliable source for it and added it to Wikipedia", but the way it is now, it appears as if it is a table summarizing research on the breakdown of absolute numbers of fatal dog attacks. These are two very different things, and the second one is definitely OR. If the lists above were known to be exhaustive, or were recreated from reliable sources claiming that they are exhaustive, I think there might be an argument to be made there, but as it is now it definitely needs to go. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 23:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In all the papers on this subject, they summarize just as we do in the 2013 case you mention, adding a footnote explaining that there are more dogs than attacks because not every attack included only one type of dog. Second, you seem to be saying that the numbers we are giving are invalid because there might be more attacks that we haven't heard of. But we do here what all the papers on the subject do, state clearly and repeatedly that there might be more. I'll have a look at adding even more of this. But even without that, the fact that there might be more such attacks than we have here doesn't make it original research. It's just summarizing the data we have, so you'll need some other grounds, such as lack of precision or some such, because there possibly being more attacks doesn't mean this is original research because summarizing the article is not original research because if it were, most article leads would be WP:OR.bChrisrus (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The summary tables are helpful to the reader because this is a long list and it's not easy for the people to get a good idea of how many of these attacks were, for example, on little kids, or how common it really is, for example, that German Shepherd fatal attacks occur, and if there are any trends. The summary tables serve the reader well by allowing researchers to look at that and Chrisrus (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the fact that you consider this wikipedia article to be similar to research papers on the subject really betrays the fact that this is original research. Those research papers get to put summary tables because they are research papers, not an encyclopedia. Second, you suggest that it helps people get a sense of the numerical breakdown of how many dog attacks there are per breed, etc. This is exactly the problem. The sampling methodology of this table is "the attack got news coverage" and "someone found the news coverage and added the attack to Wikipedia". The number of items in this particular list and in particular the number of items in the list broken down by breed is not relevant material, and it is a very unreliable method for assessing any kind of information about the number of attacks that actually take place.
The WP:CALC idea would be if you have like a table of information of a population broken down by age and you want to take a sum across the columns to get a total. It's not about counting up the number of events from totally different sources and synthesizing them into a table broken down by dog breed.0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per the overwhelming consensus over at NORB, I'm going to remove the summary tables as original research at this point.0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 08:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article title be revised to "List of dog bite-related fatalities in the United States"?

This is a semantic issue. It looks like some of the incidents listed here may not be actual "attacks." Some of these events were officially determined to be accidents. For example, see the case of Salvador Cotto. Because some of these events are known to not be attacks and others may be attacks or accidents, it may be more accurate to follow the CDCs example and use the broader term dog bite-related fatalities.Onefireuser (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

What about the ones where the dog knocks a guy down and he cracks his skull and it kills him, but it never bit the guy? This is called attacks because it doesn't include stuff like tripping accidently on a dog, the dog has to be in attack mode. And the ones that were called "accidents" that I've seen refer to a legalistic obligation of police and such to say that when a person's death was not intentional on the part of any human, not that the dog wasn't attacking. If I accidently let the dog out and he runs over and kills you, that's an accident; look back at these in context and you'll see what I mean, the word "accident" just means "not murder or manslaughter", as if the person had sicced the animal on the victim in order to use the animal as a lethal weapon. Chrisrus (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is tricky. The example of the guy falling and cracking his skull wouldn't qualify as a DBRF, but at least a few of the current entries don't clearly qualify as Attacks. For example, the reference for Salvador Cotto says, "Sources attribute the medical examiner saying 'chances are the dog was startled and it would never happen again.'" Other cases that involve neonates are similar, involving a single bite or nip, and the sources do not indicate that the dog was in "attack mode."Onefireuser (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]
Can you give an example of this type of "accidental" fatality on a person by a dog that you speak of? Chrisrus (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reference for Salvador Cotto says, "Sources attribute the medical examiner saying 'chances are the dog was startled and it would never happen again.'"
Another example, this one doesn't sounds like the dog was in "attack mode": "it looks like the dog 'simply mistook the baby for a toy.'"Onefireuser (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]
Ok, but don't dogs often attack their toys and when suddenly startled? One time I found a hoodie the plumber had been wearing and forgotten in the basement. When I came upstairs, Casey barked and showed teeth at me, because he thought, with the scent on the hoodie and it over my head, that I was a stranger suddenly in the house. If he had attacked me, it would have been a mistake, but still an attack, wouldn't you say? Chrisrus (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In some cases this is a specific dog breed, although not necessarily a purebred dog."

This sentence "In some cases this is a specific dog breed, although not necessarily a purebred dog," is problematic. If the list states, for example, that a dog was a "Great Dane", and links to the article like this: Great Dane, then we are saying that it was a purebred dog, or at least reporting that the source called it a purebred dog. If we had any reason to suspect that it was not a purebred dog, we would tell the reader so by calling it a "Great Dane mix" or "possibly a Great Dane or Great Dane-mix" or some such. The sentence in question is not true as written, so it should be deleted or fixed. If the intended idea is that such specific breed identifications might be wrong, and the dog might actualy not have been purebred Great Dane or whatever, we can say that, but we shouldn't say that calling a dog a Great Dane or some such doesn't imply that it's a purebred, because it does. Chrisrus (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Purebred (dog): "A purebred dog typically refers to a dog of a modern dog breed with a documented pedigree..." A few of the cases on the list involve dogs that the sources seem to be saying are purebred. For example, the source for "Taylor Becker" says the dog was "a 5-year-old AKC boxer." However, in most of the cases we don't have any evidence that the dog was a purebred. I agree that it's problematic. But that's part of the reason that the article bears a factual accuracy tag. The sources we are using are not a reliable way to determine breed in most of these incidents. Maybe we could add a new column that indicates the certainty of the breed designation. It would be filled in with things like "AKC registered," "bought from breeder," "neighbor says it is," "sheriff's deputy says it is," or "animal control says it is."
Otherwise, I'm not sure the best way to handle this. I'll take a look at that sentence and try to fix it, so at least it's no longer false.Onefireuser (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]
If we have reason to believe in a case that an RS might be wrong to call a dog a purebred or whatever, we should explain.
If we want to make a statement that many of the dogs we are calling purebred probably do not have the necessary documentation to be accepted as such by the kennel club; we can say that.
If we want to say, even in cases where we have no specific cause for doubt, that reason dictates that with so many reports, probably some of these are wrong about what a dog is or isn't, we can say that.
If we want to say that, it's conceivable that a seemingly purebred dog might have another dog mixed in there somewhere that doesn't show, so without paperwork, there's no way to be 100% sure even if absolutely everyone agrees that a dog is purebred, we can say that.
If we want to say that even with paperwork, it might be falsified or wrong or some such, we can say that.
When we call a pekingese a pekingese, we say, rightly or wrongly, that it's a purebred dog, even if we don't put a special "documented" stamp on it. Chrisrus (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main issue is that the general public doesn't think much about the distinction between a Purebred German Shepherd and a "German Shepherd." So when a media source says a dog is a "German Shepherd," they are not trying to say that it is a purebred dog. I think we need to operate on the assumption that none of the dogs are purebred, and instead point out when they are. For example, a few sources do say "AKC," "showdog," or "purebred." However, when we're talking about a half-starved "German Shepherd" chained up behind a run-down building, I don't think it's accurate for us to assume that they are saying it is a purebred dog. Your example of the pekingese is a bit different. That is a dog that is less common and less average dog-like. So I agree with you that when someone says pekingese it is more probably that they are talking about a purebred dog. However, when we're talking about a dog that looks closer to the average dog phenotype (German Shepherd, Labrador Retriever, Rottweiler, etc) I think we would be misleading the reader if we represent that dog as a purebred. We should err on the side of accuracy and say that we don't know if it is a purebred unless they tell us it is a purebred.
Again, I think a way to handle this is to put an explanation/disclaimer above the list (which we've done) and then make note of the few instances when they say that the dog is purebred/show/AKC. I've done this in the case of Victoria Morales. There are other attacks for which it could also be done. Onefireuser (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]
I'm not sure I get your point, because from my point of view, it's a good thing if the reader assumes that, when we categorize a dog as a specific breed, such as Labrador Retriever, we are telling them that, from what we know, it was aLabrador Retriever, not a "Labrador Retriever", to blur the referent following your example by surrounding the term with double quotes instead of brackets. If we have any reason to doubt that whether it really was what we are saying it was, we can deal with that with caveats and such.
You are correct that the sources in many cases don't have the paperwork to be recognized by the AKC. We can say that in the intro if you want. If we want to set a practice of marking those few where we know the paperwork exists, we can do that. If we want to say in the intro that most of these dogs don't meet that standard, we can do that. I don't see it as that much of a problem because that standard is too high. Chrisrus (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Marie Devitt

  1. http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/05/10/officials-to-conduct-dna-testing-on-pit-bulls-suspected-in-deadly-littlerock-attack/
  2. http://www.am870theanswer.com/local-news/2013/05/10/pamela-marie-devitt-dead-after-pit-bull-mauling-while-jogging-in-littlerock
  3. http://www.businessinsider.com/california-jogger-killed-by-pit-bulls-2013-5
  4. http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=9098014
  5. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/calif-jogger-killed-pit-bulls-identified-19154734#.UZhkrLXVCSo
  6. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/10/jogger-killed-dogs/2149843/


Ok, we've got local reports from CBS, AM870, something called "The Business Insider", Two ABCs, USA Today...; What else? Chrisrus (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bull Terrier

The term Bull Terrier refers to the English Bull Terrier, according to that article and presumably it's references, is a breed that was created by crossing pit bulls with a substantial genetic material from dolichocephalic dogs including collies and sighthounds. It is an animal that is part pit bull and part sighthound and such. It is no more a pit bull than a wolfdog is a wolf.

It's possible that in the Texas study the term "bull terrier" might have referred to something else, maybe pit bulls, but this is pure speculation. It might be best to present it as if, when the authors of the U Texas study said "bull terrier", they meant exactly that: they'd looked into it and were satisfied that those dogs were bull terriers, and that there were no fatal pit bull attacks in the USA during that period, except a proportion of pit bull in those few bull terriers. Chrisrus (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

The figures seem to be fairly accurate from about 1960 to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.115.61 (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

babies + jumping springy/swing things + dogs = a really bad idea?

How many of these involve a baby bouncing in one of those bouncy baby swings? I think there are several. Something about the motion, maybe. After working on this article, I would never put a baby in one of those jumping swing things around a dog, I don't know about you. Let's make it prominent in the circumstances column this and any other circumstances that we notice repeating in multiple cases. Chrisrus (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Lykins: whodunnit?

Please any/everyone, take some time and research the Gordon Lykins fatal attack (we have several links in the article to make this easier for you to do). As you might expect, it's disturbing, tragic, and horrific; but also it unfolds like a well-written short mystery. Don't miss the videos, they contain information not in the text, and if you watch them all to the end you will be glad you did. Your initial impressions about what happened may be suddenly turned around. Then, think about what we should say in this article about it. Chrisrus (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration?

Should this article have a photo or some such to illustrate it? What should it be? I'm thinking about a sign that says "beware of dog" or some such. Chrisrus (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • A supurb painting of a potentially fatal dog attack in the US
    A supurb painting of a potentially fatal dog attack in the US
  • A supurb painting of a boy being attacked by a dog. Appears neither fatal nor in the USA.
    A supurb painting of a boy being attacked by a dog. Appears neither fatal nor in the USA.
  • An excellent photo of military attack dog training. There are many more such photos in the commons.
    An excellent photo of military attack dog training. There are many more such photos in the commons.
  • A simple sign. While FDAs in US continue to occur when someone, often a child, wanders into a guard dog's territory, or when guard dog escapes captivity, others, such as those involving people's own house pets, do not fit this pattern.
    A simple sign. While FDAs in US continue to occur when someone, often a child, wanders into a guard dog's territory, or when guard dog escapes captivity, others, such as those involving people's own house pets, do not fit this pattern.
How about a baby jumping swing thing?Onefireuser (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

Site

The site www.dogsbite.org mostly refers to America.

Tomas Henio

Someone keeps insisting on adding that Henio was eaten to this article. Last time, as I recall, it undone on the grounds that the fact was not sufficiently well established in the supporting citation. Other objections spring to mind as well, but those may not be needed if it's not true. Chrisrus (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now undone this several times. Any ideas why this person keeps making this change? Is there something in the sources that I'm not seeing? If this is supported by the sources, let's keep it in. If not, then it certainly shouldn't be in Wikipedia.Onefireuser (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]
Yes, that is annoying, to say the least. Kudos to you for reverting it so promptly, Onefireuser. As you probably know, the last two times this was done it was credited to an IP address 71.62.254.34, which if you paste to a Google search window turns out to be in Staunton, Virginia, 24401. Special:Contributions/71.62.254.34 shows a contribution history of only these two edits, and USER:71.62.254.34 does not exist at this typing.
IP Staunton, VA, please do explain this edit! Where are you getting that information? Why do you keep doing this? Chrisrus (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Police Dogs

Onefire recently added an FDA in the USA in which the attacker was a police dog], and wondered why it had been left hadn't made the list before; as it has been several years since the attack and today.

That got me thinking, and I remembered something and went back and checked the CDC report.

It says "For the 20-year study, we excluded 4 human deaths from attacks by guard or police dogs “at work.” (emphasis mine).

It doesn't, however, say why they chose to exclude such attacks.

And this article does not mention these four attacks. I think it should because this article's referent is "FDAs in the USA", with no such restrictions. Ok, it's fundamentally different if a prisoner tries to escape past the guard dogs but doesn't make it, yes, it's a very different phenomenon than the others here, I see that. All I'm saying is, an FDA in the USA is an FDA in the USA. Chrisrus (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we already have at least a couple other incidents that involved guard dogs who were apparently "at work": John Doe on April 10, 2006; Richard Adams November 9, 2006. Of note, in the Jesse Porter case, the dog apparently killed a person who was completely unrelated to the dog's actual "work."Onefireuser (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

Mad Dogs

It seems that most of the dogs involved in these incidents are tested for rabies afterwards. Should we also include incidents in which the dog turns out to be rabid? Do we want to include fatal rabid dog attacks on this list?Onefireuser (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

I looked into this before, when I added Ada Clare to the list.
I seem to recall mention of a man who not too long ago died of dog-bite related rabies in the US, but he'd been bitten abroad, flew here, and then developed the disease and died here, so it's not a FDA in the US.
The article Rabies quotes the CDC as saying that dogs rarely get rabies in the US anymore. This we can believe because we know pretty much all dogs here jingle when they move because they have these tags, a licence and proof of rabies vaccination, dangling from their collars, by law.
However, this didn't used to be the case. If this article reaches back further into history, my guess is we are going to start finding more and more deaths by rabid dog attacks. We only know about Ada Clare because she was so famous. Reason dictates she was not the only one of us who died in that horrific way, back in the old days before the vaccine, there might have been many thousands.
Its the rabies virus's life cycle to get into the brain, take it over, and make the victim violently insane, so they attack everything and everything, so that the evil little virus can get into another before the victim dies. So we can imagine that most rabies deaths transmitted by dogs in the US back then were the result of dog attacks. However, we can't assume that to always be true because you can get rabies from simply being licked or just petting by a rabid dog, or by messily killing a rabid dog, or handling a dead rabid dog. These should not be included because they aren't attacks.
Yes, I think, if we can establish that a person died of rabies or any other disease as a direct result of being attacked, it would definitely qualify for the list. If we find that there were thousands of such FDAs in the USA back in the old days, we may want to include that fact as a separate, text section, not on the list, at it is set up for individual events, not clusters or masses of them. I tried to do this, but never found statistics about dog attack rabies deaths in historic times in the US, but you or any reader of these words might have more success.
Shudders What a horror show working on this article is! I need a break.
full song Chrisrus (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we question in the article U Texas study finding zero pitbull FDAs in the USA in 1966-1980.

The section about the U of Texas study is just supposed to be summarizing the study, but we at one point we say "However, and seem to question whether they found pit bull FDAs in the USA because they could have been confused about what the term "bull terrier" refers to; and so the bull terriers they mention might have been pit bulls. None of that is in the study, that's us being surprised about what they said. I think it would be better to simply accept the fact that they found no fatal pit bull attacks maybe because maybe there were none; and that when the authors said "bull terrier", that's what they meant. It might be hard for you or me to believe no pit bull killed anyone during those years, but please check the list and notice that neither do we have no evidence of any 1966-1980 fatal pit bull attacks. You'd have to go back to 1945 infant Marguerite Derdenger attack.

If we want to add something not seen in either of these two articles, we should just hold them up side by side and make any conclusions that are so reasonable that they'd pass WP:SYN's reasonability implication, and just come out to say pit bulls didn't start killing people until recently. Who knows? Someone might read that and realize something really important. Chrisrus (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many good points. Not sure what the best thing to do is. However, your post does make me think that a starting point would be our use of the term "pit bull." In my understanding, the Texas study DID find some deaths by "pit bulls" because a Bull Terrier IS a pit bull. (See the numerous scholarly and media sources we've cited...) If they didn't find any deaths by APBTs of AmStaffs, that isn't too surprising because there probably weren't many of those dogs around and most of them may have been owned by responsible people. What exactly do you mean when you use the term "pit bull"?Onefireuser (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

See here: Talk:Pit_bull#bull_terriers_are_not_pit_bulls. The article Pit bull should not be saying that bull terriers are pit bulls. They are not. There I say what a pit bull is; one that belongs to the pit bull branch of the dog family tree, like Pete the Pup or theoretically the same thing recreated in the same way pit bulls were created in the first place. Bull terriers are neither of things, they are not pit bulls in terms of their branch on the family tree, nor are they pit bulls in morphology because of their totally different shaped skulls. All these references about the vagueness of the term "pit bull" are about mixed breed dogs that might approach pit bull morphology despite some other ancestry. U Texas didn't say those attacks were by mixed breeds, they said they were bull terriers, period. I want to delete the whole bit so it just says that there were no fatal pit bull attacks in the United States during that period. If we want we can say that the closest thing there was to a fatal pit bull attack were these bull terrier attacks, which shares a common ancestor with pit bulls but are not pit bulls, but dump the part about them actually being pit bulls, or called pit bulls, because they are not pit bulls. Chrisrus (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So when you say "pit bull," do you mean American Pit Bull Terrier/American Staffordshire Terrier? That is certainly one reasonable, yet narrow, definition of the term. It may be the best definition of the term. Unfortunately, as described in several of our references, this is not the definition used by the general public or by the news media.Onefireuser (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]
Those sources talking about the term "pit bull" being vague are referring mostly to mixed-breed dogs. Here, there is no indication the dogs in those attacks were mixed breeds.
Those sources do talk some about other purebred dogs, such as Dogos Argentinos and other breeds that are morphologically pretty darn similar to pit bulls, but have only some shared ancestry with Pete the Pup and other true pit bulls, and so could be called "pit bulls" (or, preferably to me, "pit-bull types") not based on ancestry but morphology, including the squarish head. But bull terriers don't have square heads, they have egg-shaped heads which sets them apart from such pit bull-types. Bull terriers are their own thing in terms of shape and their widely varied ancestry. I see no reason for us to interject such commentary about the findings of the Texas study when all we're supposed to be doing is summarizing it. It sounds like we're second-guessing them, which we should only do in the face of some clear evidence that they didn't mean what they said. That's all I'm saying. There may be some value in us noting differences in the studies that are not mentioned in the studies, or maybe noting that bull terriers are the closest thing genetically to a pit bull in the Texas study, but I don't want to say that those bull terriers in the Texas study actually were pit bulls in any sense. Chrisrus (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"one of the several terms sometimes used by non-experts to refer to pit bulls"

I have a question about the newly added statement "[Bull terrier] is one of the several terms sometimes used by non-experts to refer to pit bulls." I agree with you that this is true. However, I looked at the 3 references given to support this statement and none of them seem to actually say this. They do say that Bull Terriers are sometimes called "pit bulls," but I can't find anywhere that they say "pit bulls" are sometimes called "Bull Terriers." This is a subtle but important distinction. Can we find another source that says that "pit bulls" are sometimes called "Bull Terriers?" In addition, the statement "used by non-experts" seems to be implying that the authors of the Texas study are not experts. Granted, they are MDs, not dog professionals. However, in the context of this article, I'm not sure if we want to call them "non-experts."Onefireuser (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

Juan Campos

On August 20th, 2013, in Katy, Texas, a man found the badly mauled dead body of his grandfather, 96-year old Juan Campos, in his backyard, along with that of his pet Chihuahua, and his neighbor's escaped pit bulls in the area, one attacking another dog. An autopsy is scheduled to determine whether he had died of another cause before being mauled by dogs. http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9225294 http://www.khou.com/news/local/Cy-Fair--221849341.html Chrisrus (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Text: "Part of one leg was missing." TV reporter: "Deputies say the man's leg, right leg, however, was half eaten by dogs." http://www.kcentv.com/story/23310219/man-after-apparent-dog-attack Chrisrus (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We should decide now before doing the summary for 2013 whether to include this attack. Can we find out the official cause of death somehow? Chrisrus (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSes on Juan Campos's Death that we know of.

  • "96-year-old Katy man found dead after apparent dog attack," KHOU 11, August 30, 2013 (www.khou.com)
  • "Man found dead in Katy in possible dog attack," ABC 13 KTRK, August 30, 2013 (abclocal.go.com)
  • Demond Fernandez, "Katy man found dead in possible dog attack," Yourhoustonnews.com, August 30, 2013 (www.yourhoustonnews.com)
  • Glenn, Mike "Authorities suspect dog attack in man's death," Houston Chronicle, August 30, 2013 (www.chron.com)
  • "Man, 96, mauled by dogs in back yard, dies,"UPI, August 31, 2013 (www.upi.com)
  • "Man Found Dead After Apparent Dog Attack," Kcentv.com, August 31, 2013 (www.kcentv.com)
  • "Man dead in apparent dog attack," KVEO News, September 2, 2013 (www.kveo.com)

Now, if these reporters would just update these with what the coroner report said, that'd be great. What if we just asked them nicely? Chrisrus (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It would be nice if we had access to a WP:RS that reported the results of the investigation.Onefireuser (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

Disease

Disease caused by dog sh*t would need a separate article. Dogs are banned in the capital of Iceland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RollandRFanatick (talk • contribs) 10:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reykjavik banned dogs in 1924. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RollandRFanatick (talk • contribs) 11:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed]Chrisrus (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.yukon-news.com/arts/the-dogs-of-reykjavik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copper

We need to talk about “Copper" the dog who killed James Hudson. As you may recall, the initial report, [6], categorized the dog as a “pit bull-mix”. The later report, [7] says “As for the dog, it will be put down. It is currently confined at the Tri-County Animal Shelter. Officials at the shelter told WAVY.com the dog was a Labrador - American Bulldog mix. The dog's owner and police identified the animal as a "pit bull mix."

There is no way that anyone, shelter official or not, could determine that a dog is a Lab/Am. Bulldog mix by just by examining it[8]. I could only speculate why the shelter official would have categorized Cooper that way, but it defies belief so let's just go with what the family and police said it was, some kind of pit-bullish-type-mix. Chrisrus (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that a lab-bulldog mix is a pit-bullish-type-mix. So I think it would be fine to call the dog that in the article as long as we make it clear somewhere in the article that we're using the VERY broad sense of the term "pit bull"--so broad that it would include a lab/bulldog mix. I agree with you that that broad definition is sometimes used. What I don't think we want to do is say that "Pit Bull" means APBT or AmStaff, and then say that someone's random short-haired mutt that was identified by animal control workers as a Lab mix is actually a "Pit Bull."
In the case of "Copper," I'm not sure if the police or the county Animal Shelter would be better at identifying the make-up of a mixed-breed dog, but I don't think it matters. I'm not sure why you think it is easier to identify a dog as "Pit Bull mix" than as a "Labrador mix" or as a "American Bulldog mix." All three breeds are common, and mixes of them look very similar.
All we know for sure is that the dog was not a pedigreed purebred. It seems that the most responsible thing for us to do in keeping with the standards of Wikipedia would be to report the uncertainty that is present in the RS's.Onefireuser (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]
In reply to "I agree.....is actually a "pit bull", how about "(x)-type mix"; e.g.: "collie-type mix" or "husky-type mix"? It implies well to the reader that we are speaking of the general morphology of the animal; that's all; the ancestry is unknown. A mixed breed whose skull and body were roughly close to, say, a spaniel, terrier, retriever, or pit bull.
I didn't mean to imply that it's easier to identify a mixed-breed dog as "pit bull-mix" than it would a "Lab-mix" or a "bulldog mix". But looking just at this poster, http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Voith_Inter-observer%20Reliability%20Poster_11x17.pdf, (thanks for the link), it's obvious that it's impossible to identify a mix of unknown ancestry as something as specific as specifically 0.5 Labrador retriever and 0.5 American Bulldog, just by looking at it. That's all I meant. Experienced shelter workers are reasonably assumed capable of identifying many widely known pure-bred dogs, such as basset hounds or something, and maybe even describing accurately the general shape of mixed breeds by comparing them to breeds they know, "about midway between lab and Am bulldog morphologies", that would be meaningful. But no one could know something as specific as "Lab/Am. Bulldog mix" by physical examination alone of dogs like those on the poster. Chrisrus (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with you. However, in doing so, it seems we need to agree that all of the media/police/shelter guesses as to mix are just that--guesses. However, to play the devil's advocate, hear this:
You seem to be saying that it IS possible to say a dog is a "Pit Bull mix," perhaps meaning half APBT and half something else. Then it would follow that one could say a dog is a "Lab mix," meaning half Labrador Retriever and half something else. It would then also be possible to say that a dog is an "American Bulldog mix," meaning half American Bulldog and half something else. So basically, we're saying you can mix an APBT, Lab, or Am Bulldog with another breed and still recognize the original APBT, Lab, or Am Bulldog in the mix. But you seem to be saying that in the situation when you mix a Lab and an Am Bulldog, you lose the ability to see the original Lab and Am Bulldog. I'm not sure what would lead you to that conclusion. If anything, it seems that it would be EASIER to identify a dog that is half Lab and half Am Bulldog than a dog that is just half Lab and half unknown breed.
In summary, it seems that we need to call all of the mixed breed dogs on this page exactly that: "mixed breed" (which would be in keeping with the scientific research on visual identification of mixed breeds). Otherwise, I'm not buying the argument that a dog can't be identified as "Lab/Am Bulldog mix."Onefireuser (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]
Simply saying “mixed breed” doesn’t give much information, but if all we know is “mixed breed”, that’s what we should say. If we know more about mixed breeds, we should say more. We could say "spitz-type mix" or "terrier-type mix", or (fill-the-general-dog-type) mix, where this information is available and reasonably reliable, is good to include. In sum, if we know what type of mixed breed it is, that’s what we should say. This is the case with Copper. Chrisrus (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final statistics for 2013

We have not included these cases for 2013. It's time me made an informed, reasonable decision:

  • The death of James Harding According to sources, he was killed by a car during a dog attack. They chased him into traffic. In his horror, he ran out in front of a car. I think it should be included because it was a dog attack that caused a man to die, therefore within the scope of this article.
  • The death of Patricia Ritz. There was very little left of the body, so there is of course some doubt, but how reasonable is it to leave it off the list? Please, the measure is reasonably. The woman was living in a compound of some fifty, not dogs, wolf/dog hybrid canids. By the time people came searching, they found the animals tragically badly cared for and her bones scattered among them. Is the doubt reasonable enough to leave them off the statistics?
  • The death of Juan Campos. Please scroll up and see the section we had opened last year in order to collect and study and discuss available sources on his death. There is, of course, some possibility that he just happened to die of something else just at the moment there happened to be a wild pack of marauding stray molosser mixes going about attacking people and dogs, killing his chihuahua right next to him, and ripping his leg off after he died. But how reasonable is this scenario? Reasonable enough for us to leave it off the list?

We could include these in main 2013 list along with any caveats and qualms that we should rightly inform the reader of and let him/her decide. Then, we should include all three in the end-of-year statistics. Chrisrus (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're joking about all 3 of these cases. The first one is a man that was running with two dogs behind him and got hit by a car. For that to be included in an encyclopedia entry on fatal dog attacks is absurd. The reference for the 2nd case says "Investigators said they believe that Ritz became sick and died and that the dogs...consumed her body to survive." There's nothing in there that says they attacked her. The 3rd case, Juan Campos, is the only one that seems like it could possibly be a fatal attack. But, unfortunately, we don't have any reliable sources to say it was. All we have are a bunch of articles saying that a 96 year-old man (96!) was found dead in his backyard and that the neighbor's dogs had bitten his leg after digging under the fence. Sure, from that description it seems possible that he was attacked and killed. But it also seems possible that he died because he was 96 and then the dogs had time to dig under the fence to get to the body. Either way, we have no way of knowing. The news sources don't say what the investigation determined about the cause of death.Onefireuser (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]
The apparent cause of Juan Campos's death here is: dogs ate his leg off. There is no sign we have of any other kind of death, none. Although reason dictates he could have died first of something else and then was eaten, we have no proof of any other cause of death. That's just speculation. Evidence trumps speculation, one would think. There is only one apparent cause of death.
We know James Harding was killed because he was being attacked by dogs. It's not a dog-bite-related-fatality, but it was a death caused by a dog attack. They were attacking him, and he died as a result. He would never have run out into the street and been killed by a car if those dogs hadn't been attacking him. This referent of this article is dog attacks that kill, not dog-bites that do. That dog attack killed a man, so that dog attack should be included. Chrisrus (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New format for 2014?

Why not take this opportunity to update the list format? Because we're starting a new list, we can do it differently, and there has been much consensus, scroll up that the columns need re-arranging and so on.

This format was chosen when it was a list of people who were killed by dogs. Now, it's a list of events. So we should now instead say "A fatal dog attack occurred, on this day, in this place, to this person, by this category of dog, details. Even if the dog attack results in the deaths of three people, it will be only one item instead of three to the extent that all three died in the same attack.

We could add more columns, such as extended tethering, neutered/intact, rabid/not, on own property/escaped, and so on. Chrisrus (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date Location Victim Age Sex Category of Dog Category of Attack Circumstances
January 5 Houston, Texas Christine Bell 43 F Pit bull mix Pack=yes; owner=neighbor; property=at large; rabies=no; other victims=2; negligent owner indications=yes; criminal charges=pending investigation Killed by a pack of dogs in an attack in which 2 other people were also injured. The owners of the dogs had previously received multiple citations for keeping the animals in deplorable conditions, not licensing or vaccinating them, and allowing them to run at large. Homicide detectives were determining whether to press criminal charges.[10]
Great idea. Thanks, Chrisrus. How about a column for spay/neuter status since that has been identified as an important factor?Onefireuser (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]
Done. What other columns should we add, if any, and what about the order? We should finalize this quickly because each new item makes column work more difficult. Chrisrus (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Niko, 130lb. pitbull?

Today I deleted these words " - thus unable to be classified as a true pit bull" which followed the statement that Niko, the dog that killed Mia Derouen in March of this year, 2014. Is this true? To find out, I Googled around and found that the breed standards and descriptions specify a much lighter animal. Yet, on the other hand, I was also able to find individual pit bulls that weighed much more than one hundred pounds. I found some breeders who have been breeding pit bulls for size and have very large pit bulls, including 120 pound animals, which of course could be fattened to reach 130, which is what Niko weighed. Also, we know that poodles and schnauzers and others can vary between toy size to giant size and still be poodles or schnauzers. The source we are using shows no doubt that Niko was a pit bull, but if that's just not possible we should talk about what to do. But I'm not so sure that it's not possible to be 130 pounds and a pit bull at the same time. Chrisrus (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that pit bulls are a class of dog breeds as opposed to one single breed, there isn't defined standards for what it is. 130 lbs is a big for a pit, but not unheard of. Most people consider an AmStaff AKC specifications for "pit bull", but very few dogs labelled as pitbulls are purebred amstaffs. A pit/mastiff mix can easily get to that size. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rottweilers as Child-specific killers

It seems worth noting that Rottweiler's in this list killed 5 times as many children age 12 and under compared to adults. Pitt Bulls killed age 12 and under about 55% of the time. Ywaz (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether to include the Rita Pepe attack on this list.

First, let's collect available sources on this topic. Please contribute to this list, as it may not be complete. Then, separately, let's have the discussion in subsection:

Sources on the Rita Pepe dog attack

Discussion

The Rita Pepe Dog Attack should be included on the list because sources that she died of dog attack complications. Chrisrus (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the first link does not mention her death and the second states she died a month and a half later in her own home from kidney failure. I don't think the sentence "that doctors told him the trauma and extended inactivity as a result of the attack accelerated her condition" makes the attack itself a fatality, especially if she had a preexisting condition. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The doctor said she died of trauma and extended inactivity as a result of the attack. It only says "probably" kidneys. The doctor said she died as a result of trauma and extended inactivity as a result of the attack. This means that the attack caused trauma and three weeks in the hospital, which caused her death. Please respond. This is death by complications resulting from the dog attack. Chrisrus (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the doctor said the trauma and extended inactivity "accelerated her condition", referring to her kidneys. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Comment - I am not all that familiar with this article page. I only just stumbled upon it by chance. In any event, why is the inclusion/exclusion of the Rita Pepe case controversial? You can just include it on the list and cite all of the relevant facts in the "Circumstances" column of her entry in the chart. It's all semantics as to whether her death "was" or "was not" caused by a dog. Certainly, there is at least some connection – regardless of how big or how small – between the dog attack and the death. So, just list the facts and readers can come to whatever conclusions they like. It's not as if including her death on a "list of fatal dog attacks in the USA" would be totally uncalled for, unreasonable, and unwarranted. Even if it's a "gray area" and a "close call", that's exactly what the "Circumstances" notations are for. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@USER:Joseph A. Spadaro Please do. Let me know if you need any help. Chrisrus (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@USER:Joseph A. Spadaro The reason she had not been included is because wikipedia is an encyclopedia and according to WP:RS "is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." Since, as the title says, this is a page about "fatal dog attacks," we should only include incidents for which we have WP:RS indicating that they were indeed fatal dog attacks. I've been trying to find a WP:RS that confirms that for the Rita Pepe case, but have not been able to. So far, all I have found is statements from her son saying that she died of kidney failure (extremely common in 90+ year olds) and that her condition was accelerated by the inactivity secondary to her attack. Again, according to WP:RS this "is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." Please help us find a WP:RS for this incident. Onefireuser (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to this one, the doctor said that, even though the immediate cause of death was "probably" kidneys, she died due to trauma from the dog attack and its treatment. I.e.: complications from dog attack. Chrisrus (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, is that source considered "good enough"? I would think so. But, as I mentioned, I am not a regular reader or editor on this particular page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may be mixing up what is said by the doctor and what is said by the woman's son. No doctor appears to have been interviewed for this article. Also, nowhere does it say that the dog bite was a contributing cause of death. It says she probably died of kidney failure (something that has nothing to do with dog bites) and that the trauma accelerated her condition. Here is the actual quote: "Charlie Pepe said his mother... 'probably' died of kidney failure but added that doctors told him the trauma and extended inactivity as a result of the attack accelerated her condition." Onefireuser (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see what the "big deal" and the "controversy" is. The case is – at a minimum – tangentially related to a fatal dog attack. The "gray area" can be satisfactorily explained in the "Circumstances" notations. This has nothing to do with gossip and rumors. Wikipedia is not to be taken so literally. The title of this article means "fatal dog attacks" and other tangentially related events to that main topic. There is no rule – or reason – that Wikipedia needs to be taken 100% literally, especially when the result is to exclude relevant information. Just as an example, a Wikipedia list of the "verified 100 oldest people in the world" could (and probably does) have a section for "unverified claims" (which is clearly the exact opposite of the article's title, yet nonetheless related and relevant and, thus, information that merits inclusion). Same goes here with the Pepe dog attack case (I believe). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. Should we start an "unverified claims" section? Onefireuser (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't think there needs to be a new section called "unverified claims". I think the Pepe case should be listed just like any other case, and the "Circumstances" notations can be used to clarify the situation (as to whether or not it was "really" a fatal dog attack, or as to how the dog attack was or was not related to the death, etc.). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing DBRFs

There are numerous DBRFs every year that are never reported in the media. Many of them are never reported anywhere. Some, however, are reported in medical case studies, but only if there is something medically novel about the case. I am going to start assembling a list of cases here that are not found in the news media, but that may not have enough info for inclusion on the main list. We can decide on a case-by-case basis what to do with them:Onefireuser (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Onefireuser[reply]

  1. 2014: Case records of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Case 10-2014. A 45-year-old man with a rash (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24670171): Bitten on hands and arms while bathing his dog. Eventually died of bacteremia and purpura fulminans due to Capnocytophaga canimorsus, an unusual infection that comes from bacteria in a dog's mouth.
  2. 1993: EVALUATION OF FATAL DOG BITES: THE VIEW OF THE MEDICAL EXAMINER AND ANIMAL BEHAVIORIST (https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=143002): 4-year old girl attacked in back yard by 2 strange dogs.
  3. 2004: Capnocytophaga canimorsus sepsis with purpura fulminans and symmetrical gangrene following a dog bite in a shelter employee. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15201655) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefireuser (talk • contribs) 14:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 1992: Death due to attack from chow dog. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1288259) Elderly woman attacked by her dog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefireuser (talk • contribs) 00:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Let's add this/these to the article. Chrisrus (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Should the List (Section 2) be removed from this article?

Our study in Section 2 is far from a complete survey of all dog-bite related fatalities. Another study based on CDC WONDER data found that there were at least 26 deaths in 2000. Our study on this Wikipedia page identified only 5 in 2000. If we are only reporting less than 20% of cases, what is the point of this list? There does not seem to be any valid inclusion criteria except "happened to be reported by some news website." On what basis is this material appropriate for an encyclopedia? Please see WP:SENSATION and WP:BADIDEA.Onefireuser (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see why we should be repeating the research of the CDC at al.— badly. Mangoe (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal, there is also no data for 1997 and 1998. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it matters what percentage of the reported deaths we actually cover. Even if we were doing the research perfectly, it's still us doing original research. The fact that we're not covering the topic exhaustively is a good demonstration of why WP:OR is in place.
I also think that if this isn't a violation of WP:OR, then it's necessarily a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It seems like either it's a random collection of non-notable dog attack deaths or it's a systematic survey of all dog deaths; the former is indiscrminate, the latter is original research, neither are appropriate, so I support removal.0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to be certain what is being referred to by "Section 2". Do you mean Media reports of fatal dog attacks in the United States? -- Brangifer (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a question for me? You indented as if it is, but you also changed everyone's indentation so it looked like each paragraph is a reply to the previous one rather than a reply to the top level comment. Either way, yes, we're talking about the list of incidents.0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My question is part of a threaded discussion, and anyone can answer. Thanks for the answer. (Right now, with the same indentation, instead of a threaded discussion, I find it visibly hard to separate comments. Mangoe's, Pearl's and your comment are again one single block ending with your sig, which could easily create confusion. No big deal though. There is no absolute rule here defining how to thread discussions. I favor visible separation through indentation. When the same indentation is used, bullets are usually used to draw attention to that fact. See any !vote at an Afd.) -- Brangifer (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to bullet, since I agree they are best for demarcating same-level comments. I've never seen threading work the way you've mentioned it, which is contrary to WP:INDENT (you only increase indent level if you are responding to a comment, "sister" responses have the same level of indentation). It's not a big deal, though.0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incompleteness is not an issue. Of course this is not a complete survey of all fatal dog attacks in the United States. It's not supposed to be. It doesn't claim to be. In fact, it says repeatedly that it is not. It's a dynamic list, an incomplete list. There are countless incomplete lists all over Wikipedia. Look at List of famous dogs, List of unusual deaths, or List of exoplanets. If you've got an issue with dynamic lists in general, there must be an appropriate forum for that. Chrisrus (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are not using the synthesis rule correctly. The point of the rule is to keep people from publishing their own ideas, not from researching things in WP:RSes and summarizing it in Wikipedia. Doing research and summarizing facts could never be a violation of anything on Wikipedia because Wikipedia would not exist without Wikipedians doing research and summarizing it. Maybe 95% of all contributions to Wikipedia consist of doing research in RSes and summarizing it, so this article cannot be rightly criticized on the grounds that Wikipedians researched it in RSes and summarized that research.
For example, I remember a clear-cut case of original research by synthesis on the article Criticisms of Noam Chomsky. Some guy tried to add his own criticism of Noam Chomsky, and it was well cited and valid. But it was his criticism of Noam Chomsky, not one that he had found in a WP:RS. So, here, if someone personally knew about a fatal dog attack in the United States which had not been published anywhere, and added that to the article, that would be original research.
When working on Wikipedia, there will be times, such as when sources disagree, that will call for Wikipedians to not just be, as Jimmy Wales calls them, "transcription monkeys". He was talking about something else (it was the age of a famous person) but he said that those who think that anything about the rules and guidelines and such mean that we should knowingly include incorrect information to the encyclopedia; that anyone who thinks that is sorely mistaken. On this article, there could be situations in which, for example, a fatal attack is attributed at first to one kind of dog and then another kind of dog, or maybe it's attributed to a basset hound, but there is obvious reason to believe that the dog was not a basset hound. It doesn't happen a lot, it but it happens. In such cases, here just as in all kinds of articles all over Wikipedia, Wikipedians have to stop being transcription machines and think and discuss and decide what the best thing to do would be in a given case and do our best to make it good as it can be given the problem. The only thing is to just be reasonable.
Original research by synthesis would be for example if we were to look at all the sources and say that the reason that a high percentage of fatal attacks involve pitbulls (cite this fact) is because they are the among the strongest dogs on the planet (cite this fact), and, of the strongest dogs, they are the most common and popular (cite this fact) and that they actually attack people less often than smaller, weaker dogs (cite this fact). That would be us cobbling our own conclusion from different citable sources. That is why its very important to have the WP:SYN rule, even though it's so widely abused rule on Wikipedia that great care should be taken when using it. Chrisrus (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chrisrus, I'm still not sure what the point of this list is. That was my original question above. Interestingly, the examples you gave of other lists don't actually exist. List of famous dogs actually just goes to "Lists of dogs." List of exoplanets goes to "Lists of planets." And List of unusual deaths actually goes where it is supposed to go. However, the main issue here, as 0x0077BE clearly pointed out, is that our list is indiscriminate. There is nothing notable about the list as a whole and if there was, then it would be Original Research. There is also nothing notable about the individual items on the list. This makes it quite different than List of unusual deaths. On that page most of the items are notable in and of themselves and most even have their own wikipedia article. On our page, only two out of many dozens are notable in and of themselves (and barely notable at that). There may be problems with List of unusual deaths, but if they started just googling "bizarre death" and including every event like [[9]] or [[10]] they would quickly have an indiscriminate list.Onefireuser (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List of dogs is an example of a list each item is not necessarily notable enough to have it's own article.
List of potentially habitable exoplanets is an example of another list that, like this one, reason dictates, couldn't possibly be complete, because surely there must be more that we couldn't possibly know about, and also that list, like this one, expands regularly when new ones are found. List of unusual deaths is an example that exists because it's interesting to many people. Chrisrus (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may be interested to see some examples of how people have found this Wikipedia article useful: [11] and [12]. I'm not sure what it says about their legal skills, but it is flattering that these lawyers were able to use our research to provide statistics that they could not find in any other reputable source.Onefireuser (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That second law firm also unfortunately cites dogsbite.org in the same paragraph as this WP article. PearlSt82 (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yeah. This kind of passing along our (inadequate) research is why this sort of list needs to go. Mangoe (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please start a new section if you're going to change the subject. WP:NOTFORUM. Chrisrus (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits.

Thanks for a large amount of recent edits. It is an unpleasant and largely thankless job, so thank you. Keep up the good work: Just a few points:

  1. Is this one or two attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=625009351 ?
  2. In 2006, can the dog rightly be said to have "attacked" Kaitlyn Hassard?
  3. In 1942, the dog was chasing a car, tripped Dorothy Whipka, and she hit her head. Is this a dog attack? Chrisrus (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In 1977, in the Jon Setzer, Jr. attack, the source seems to be saying that the Irish setter was not suspected in the attack.

Again, I know how painful researching these attacks can be and appreciate everything you have done with these recent edits. I don't know how you were able to do these Google searches but am willing to help but when I search Google News for these events I get no results, see here: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22Fern+Atchley%22+dog+attack&safe=off&tbm=nws Chrisrus (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It seems to be 1 attack, and I was following the convention set by the 1967 Goodman Brothers incident.
  2. I wouldn't say this is definitely an attack, but I also wouldn't call many of the other events on the list a definite "attack." For example, Darla Anne Harper and Salvador Cotto. We've had a difficult time coming to a consensus on how to define an "attack" on this page in the past. So for now, I'll continue to interpret it broadly. If we want to define attack as always involving biting and always involving intent to harm, we should start a new section and we will need to revisit most of the entries on this page to make sure they meed that definition.
  3. See above.
  4. The source says they cut open the dog's stomach to see if it contained human remains. That suggests that they did suspect that the dog was invovled in the attack, but they determined that he did not actually ingest any of the victim. Onefireuser (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Ok, so I consolidated the Goodman Brothers attack now.
  2. Dogs do attack their toys. Attacking things can be a fun game for dogs, as opposed to an aggressive attack. But a toddler is not a toy. A play attack is still an attack if the child is being used as a chew toy or "tug" toy. But the girl and dog were playing with the scarf and it somehow got around her neck and he ran away, ran AWAY from her, dragging her accidently and strangled her. It wasn't even a play attack, it wasn't an attack at all. If they'd been running and she tripped on it and died that isn't an attack. It's not even a play attack. We only collect attacks here.
  3. This dog was not attacking her even in a playful way that got out of hand. It was chasing a car and ran through her legs and she tripped and hit her head and died from tripping and falling. If I trip on Casey in the middle of the night, because he sleeps on the top of the stairs sometimes, and I'm not careful, I might trip on him and tumble down the stairs and break my neck and die, is that a fatal dog attack. There's no reason to think that dog even noticed her. Now, if I'm two years old and a great dane thinks I'm his chew toy and bites me and shakes me like a terrier shakes a rat or rag, and I die of that, well, that's a fatal dog attack, because it was only a play attack, but an attack nevertheless because the dog bit me and shook me.
  4. The way it reads, they felt they cleared the setter from any suspicion. The source and our wording in the description imply that at first they thought maybe the setter was involved but decided it wasn't. There's no sign anyone believed that the setter was involved after they checked the stomach. It seems everyone, even the author of our description of the attack on this list, was trying to say that the setter was involved. So if it's now agreed the setter wasn't involved, then it shouldn't be on the list at all. Chrisrus (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you; the Dorothy Whipka case does not sound like an "attack." It should be removed. This is supposed to be a list of "fatal dog attacks." This whole discussion makes me think that we need to come up with a clear definition of "attack" and put it out there at the front of the page. I will start a new section below so we can discuss this. Onefireuser (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stray references

  1. ^ Articles.orlandosentinel.com
  2. ^ Articles.orlandosentinel.com
  3. ^ Articles.orlandosentinel.com
  4. ^ http://www.azfamily.com/news/Woman-attacked-by-pit-bulls-in-October-dies--151976955.html
  5. ^ http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/azcentral/obituary.aspx?n=maryann-b-hanula&pid=157653644&fhid=11540#fbLoggedOut
  6. ^ http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Dog-Bites/dogbite-factsheet.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  7. ^ http://www.americanhumane.org/assets/pdfs/animals/au-animal-welfare-position-statements.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  8. ^ http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/breed-specific-legislation-1.aspx. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  9. ^ http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/breed-specific-legislation/fact_sheets/breed-specific-legislation-flaws.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  10. ^ Woodard, Brad (5/1/14). "Officials indentify woman killed in pit bull attack in SE Houston". KHOU. Retrieved 8 January 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Javon Dade Jr.

Author: Charles Rabin of The Miami Herald, http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/08/22/4303436/police-father-and-girlfriend-were.html, describes the dogs as

  1. "...a pack of bull terriers and a pitbull".
  2. "...five terrier-boxer mixes and a pitbull"
  3. "Animal Services workers found there were six dogs on the property, three puppies and three adults. Two of the three adults were female boxer-terriers, the adult male was a pitbull. Animal Services and police were conducting tests to determine which dogs bit Javon."

Author: Lydia Warren For Mailonline (http://www.capitalbay.com/latest-news1/548469-javon-dade-jr-found-mauled-to-death-by-dogs-after-playing-with-puppies-alone.html)

  1. "One of the dogs was a pit bull"
  2. "Six dogs - two female terrier-boxer mixes, a male pit bull and three terrier-boxer mixed puppies..."

Copyright: Miami-Dade Animal Services three photos of each of the three puppies. No blatantly obvious discrepancy with any category of dog in the text. The one on the left is brown, then the black puppies. The caption, which may not have been written by Lydia Warren, says:

  1. "Three adult dogs (top) and three puppies - aged between two and four months old - were seized"

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-goulds-dog-maul-fatal-20140813,0,2015471.story

In this video report, reporter Lauren Pastrana says, "one pit bull, the rest terrier mixes"

http://www.capitalbay.com/latest-news1/548469-javon-dade-jr-found-mauled-to-death-by-dogs-after-playing-with-puppies-alone.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2724820/Javon-Dade-Jr-4-mauled-death-dogs-wandering-backyard-alone.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

How to handle Mixed Breed Dogs

Chrisrus recently changed the Category of Dog for Ellyssa Rhae Peterson to "Mixed Breed." Apparently this change was made because the news media reported that the dogs "were mutts" that "appeared to be a combination of Labrador, German shepherd and other species." I agree that we should probably call these dogs "mixed breed." There are numerous problems with calling them Lab-Shepherd mixes (not least of which is that fact that the police/reporter think that breeds are "species"). However, for now I have reverted it. Calling these 2 dogs mixed breed is inconsistent with the hundreds of other incidents in this article. Most of the dogs in our article are mixed breed dogs that have been visually identified by police, neighbors, random people on the street, owners, animal control, etc. Why would we decide to call these 2 "mixed breeds" but assign breed labels to all the others? This may come down to a WP:RS issue. The scientific evidence, some of which we document in this article, clearly states that visual ID, especially by police etc is not a reliable way to determine breed. This is doubly true for mixed breed dogs.

So should we continue assigning breed designations based on our un-reliable sources or should we demand better documentation (eg registration) and when there are no reliable sources simply write "mixed breed" as Chrisrus decided to do in the case of Ellyssa Rhae Peterson? Onefireuser (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be recording breed at all? Its highly unlikely that many, if any, of the dogs involved in fatal attacks are purebred. Beyond DNA testing there is no reliable way to ascertain a dog's makeup. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do think we should be recording breed if we can. It is definitely a major point of interest regarding dogs and injuries. However, I'm not sure how we can source it reliably. According to WP:RS, "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact." And "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis". It seems that our news sources may be considered reliable for dates, ages, and possibly names. For these items, there seems to be little disagreement between sources. However, you have a good point, that it may be difficult to reliably source breed information from news reports. WP:RS also states "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value... Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." There seem to be a number of factors that suggest that our news sources may not meet WP:RS when it comes to breed identification. First, there are frequent inconsistencies regarding breed ID. Second, a large body of scientific evidence suggests that visual ID of mixed breed dogs is difficult or impossible. Third, most of the scientific journal articles suggest that news media may misrepresent breed. For example, the CDC paper from 2000 stated "ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression." It does seem like we may run the risk of violating the statement "Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this. At the end of the day, our most important goal is to make sure that we are working in accordance with WP:5P. Onefireuser (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks for all the work you've been doing. I have some time coming up and will try to follow your lead with these old newspaper searches. If you'd like me to search certain areas so we can cover more ground, let me know.
Second, we give the reader a fair summary of what the sources say about what kind of dog it was. If they state a specific breed, barring some obvious reason for doubt found in those sources, we should pass that along. In many cases, however, only a more general category is found, perhaps "spaniel", "sled dog", "pit bull", or "lap dog". We do the best we can. So let's not get hung up on the term "breed". We just give as accurate a description of the category of dog it was based on what's in the sources. That is all.
Next, a fair summary of that source is not that the dog was a lab/GSD mix. If you read it, you will agree that a better summary is that the dog was a mixed breed of unknown parentage, but it looked as if it might have lab in it, and maybe GSD, as well as other things. This is what that source says, not that the dog was a lab/GSD mix. It is not as fair a summary of the source to simply call it a lab/GSD mix; it wasn't trying to say that's what it was so much as a mixed breed dog that looked like it might be a lab/GSD mix. That seems to e the best we can do so let's undo that last edit and leave it at that.
In some other cases, you may be right; donno; it depends on the case; I'd have to see it. For example, if the source had said that it was a Lab/GSD mix - that's all; well, we would say that, barring some rational reason for doubt (such as a video of a Basset hound killing the victim) in the sources. If you see any more cases like this where a source is written in such a way that it's explicitly stated or clearly implied that in the source the category was unclear or doubtful; well, we should say something like "unclear" or "doubtful" in the category box and send them to the description box for a more wordy, detailed summary. For example, if the source said "It looked kinda like a pitbull, but it was not clear, I couldn't be certain", the we might say "Unclear, see text" or some such, not simply "Pitbull" and that's that. The thing is to do a fair summary of the source(s) in a holistic way. Chrisrus (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In response to "If they state a specific breed, barring some obvious reason for doubt found in those sources, we should pass that along," are we risking violating WP:RS where it says "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value... Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." Yes, we give the reader a fair summary of what the sources say, but all the evidence suggests that the sources are not reliable for identifying types of dogs. Wikipedia guidelines say we should not use news media for statements that are unreliable. This has come up repeatedly on these talk pages. Should we query the Reliable Sources noticeboard to see if third-party editors can lend an unbiased eye?
Regarding the lab/GSD issue: I don't see the difference between these news sources saying a dog is a lab/GSD mix and saying a dog is a mixed breed that looks like a mix of lab and GSD. How do you think any of these determinations are being made? In almost all of these cases it is based on the way it looks. For example, look at Ja'Marr Tiller. He was killed by 2 stray dogs that were called lab/GSD mixes. Do you really think that someone knew the exact parentage of those 2 stray dogs? Also see Elijah Rackley. He was killed by a stray chow mix. How do you think they determined that stray was chow mix? It is all based on appearance, just like in the lab/GSD case in questions. There are tons more examples like this (80% of the cases on the page). So, in summary, I agree with you. We should not be reporting that dog as a "lab/GSD mix." But we should have a consistent policy across the whole article and not make a special exception for just one case. Onefireuser (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Ja'Marr Tiller, that's a bit different because the source for the Alyssa Raye attack is clearly worded in such a way as to say that they don't want to give the impression that lab/gsd mix is anything but an educated guess at best. The source that calls the dogs in the Ja'Marr Miller case lab/GSD mixes doesn't express any doubt about it in so many words. However, it does say that they were strays, and so you're right, how could they know? That's reasonable doubt. If you were to call that "mixed breed - see text", and then explained in the description the reason for the doubt; i.e.: them being strays and therefore of unknown parentage, I'd see that as doing the best we can.
In the Elijah Rackley case - check it and see - it neither expresses doubt nor says they'd been strays. Coincidentally, I used to know a Chow/lab mix. Lovely dog named Kirby that belong to some good neighbors when I lived in DC. There was no doubt what Kirby was because we knew his parents. So just because that Elijah Riackley dog was called a Chow-lab mix doesn't make me think that it must have been determined by just looking at it and guessing, because some such dogs are not so called for the reason you give; sometimes there is no reasonable doubt that a chow/Lab mix is a chow/Lab mix, and the dog in the Elijah Rackley attack seems to have been just like Kirby in that way because we don't see any clear sign of reasonable doubt in the source. So in that case, I think we should just call the dog that in that upfront way that implies that the source seemed sure about it. Chrisrus (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a tiny percentage of "designer dogs" in this country. But do you really think that most of the dogs on this page are designer mixes? Most of the dogs on this page are the result of poor ownership and have bred on their own. Your Kirby is very different from these dogs. In any case, the Elijah Rackley dog is not described as a Chow/Lab mix. If it were a designer mix, as you assert, what is it mixed with? And yes, I did check the reference, which apparently you did not do. It does not say anything about it being a Chow/lab mix; it just says Chow mix. The whole article is about how stray dogs, including this one, are a problem in the county:
"The family had apparently taken the stray dog under it's wing, a Chow-mix they named Ariel. "
"NewsChannel 9 uncovers another case involving stray dogs that attacked children in McMinn County"
"the county is overrun with wild, stray animals"
No reasonable, neutral reader could say that this is reliable evidence that they new the parentage of the dog.
When you say "them being strays and therefore of unknown parentage," how does that inform the way we should handle dogs that are being identified only by visual appearance by police, animal control, etc? That implies it is done visually and not by known parentage, especially when there are conflicting breed designations. Do you really think that most of the dogs on this page are of known parentage? Onefireuser (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that research. It's different from the Ellyssa Peterson dog because the sources don't overtly express uncertainty, although it says that it had been a stray. So how could they have been so sure? I bet it had a blue tongue, like Kerby. That's just a guess, of course, but there are some mixed breeds that clearly contain one type or breed clearly prodominates and that might explain why no doubt is expressed in that source as it is with the Peterson dog. Chrisrus (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I understand your position now. Although I still don't completely agree. Yes, people like to say that because a dog has a blue tongue it must be part Chow. But that is incorrect. See http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/dogsbreed/blacktongue.htm for examples. The bottom line is, even if people think they are confident in identifying a mixed-breed dog, the scientific literature tells us that is a false confidence. So when our sources appear confident in identifying mixed-breed dogs, all it tells us is that our sources are not WP:RS when it comes to the specific question of breed. Onefireuser (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I hesitate to give each other carte blanche to label all stray dogs "unknown-see text". After all, most people could probably identify a stray dog as a Basset Hound. It doesn't take much training or experience to learn to tell a spitz-type from a scenthound from a sighthound. In the one which I thought you were going to restore from your undo, the way it was phrased was like "donno", looked as if it might have been a lab/GSD". Based on your research into Ariel, it seems to have been phrased as if it were generally agreed by everyone involved that that was what Ariel obviously was. My fairest summary of what this this source, (as described above) "Apparent chow mix" . That way, we warn the reader that the following description is to describe its morphology, only. That's the best I can do with the evidence provided. We should check for more sources. Chrisrus (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and if we start labeling all stray dogs "unknown-see text," then how would we handle the large number of dogs for which the owners, police, animal control, and neighbors all report different breeds? Those inconsistencies imply that the identification is based on visual appearance rather than known parentage. That would lead us down a path of having to say that we only occasionally have encyclopedia-worthy sources to document breed identification. Onefireuser (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I wouldn't want to make any hard and fast rules without seeing the specific case. The important thing is, we should give as fair a summary of the source(s) as possible. If something seems amiss, it should be dealt with reasonably. Next, I'm not so sure there are that many such cases as you seem to be. There are some, but maybe not really all that many, so let's not overstate the problem. And also, they are not all the same. For example, if one source were to call a dog, I donno for instance a Mackenzie River husky, and another just simply called it a husky, another said sled dog, and a very furry spitz-type, in a case like that, those are not mutually exclusive or contradictory or in disagreement. All those phrases could be all true at the same time. On the other hand, if there are cases where, just to use an extreme example, one says the a dog was a greyhound, and another said it was a fox terrier. That's mutually exclusive, so something's not right. So, in such cases, we might say "Disputed - see text". The point is, go with the fairest summary, holistically. Chrisrus (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. We should go with the most accurate summary that is reliably sourced. Onefireuser (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CDC recommendations for dog attack prevention

Why is this green chart in the lead? It belongs in the body of the article, but certainly not in the lead. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems reasonable to move it. Onefireuser (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selection Criteria: definition of "attack"

According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style at WP:LSC, lists such as this one need clear selection criteria:

Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources."

We have already defined what counts as "fatal" when we wrote that "contributing factors" count: "Not all attacks listed here were determined by medical authorities to be the primary cause of death.
However, we still need to clearly define "attack" in the context of the page. The dictionary definition is "to act against someone/something aggressively in an attempt to injure or kill." Unfortunately, we cannot use that definition because several of our cases have been described as involving playful dogs that killed their young human playmates accidentally. At WP:LSC it states that in cases where criteria are subjective, membership "should be based on reliable sources." Although it seems that our criteria will likely need to be subjective, we unfortunately cannot base membership on reliable sources, because no reliable secondary sources exist to give a list of recent fatal attacks. How do people propose we deal with this? Onefireuser (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All attacks, whether aggressive or playful, should be included. That definition can't work because it speaks of "intent". While obviously dogs can attack, it's far from clear that they have "intent". They are just animals and it's far from clear that they can envision a future or have purposes in the way that "intend" implies. They do have emotional states, obviously, and something that we might call "agressive" or "playful". What matters is not their mental state but the simple fact of the attack. Chrisrus (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Yet, the question remains, how do we define attack? Does it need to involve a bite? A scratch? What if the dog is reported by all sources to have been playfully nipping the child and bit too hard by accident because it did not have adequate training with bite control? What if the dog was being attacked by a human and bit in self-defense? What if someone is feeding a dog and gets a small puncture wound on the hand and subsequently dies of infection? These are not hypothetical examples; they have all occurred and have been documented in our research. Perhaps this is why the scholarly sources tend to refer not to attacks but to DBRFs. Although the vast majority of the time it is obvious which fatalities are attacks, there have been enough ambiguous cases that we can't simply continue to use the Potter Stewart approach to defining attack. We need to bring this article in line with WP:LSC and preempt future disagreements about which cases belong on the list. Onefireuser (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should hesitate to set any strict rules as to what constitutes an "attack". We just should look at the details of the specific case. We can't predict the future nor what we will find in the past. There may be fatal dog attacks that involve neither of those things you mention, a bite or a clawing. One hears of canid attacks that amount to no more than a full-speed tripping or body-checking. So I can't really answer about those things until we see the details, because such things as knocking into another while running also are sometimes obviously not "attacks. As with every other referent on Wikipedia, (except some proper nouns), there is a gray area surrounding the central referent which includes some cases that both are and, at the very same time, are not that thing, depending on how you look at it. Hopefully, we won't have too many such cases, but if and when we do, I suspect that the solution might involve asterisks and caveats to "see text" and so on. And, as usual, discussion and editorial judgement.
Next, with regard such playful "accidents", even if it were as clear as in your example that it was merely a matter of bite control failure during play, yes, it should be included, if the person died as a result of the bite. Dogs don't always have to be in attack mode, mentally, to attack. Sometimes they attack when their brain is in play mode. Cats, for example, seem to pretty much always attack their toys as if they were prey. A play attack in which the dog and person are playing and it just gets way too rough and the person ends up dead, yes, the way I personally see that, it should be included in this list. However, It should be done in such a way so that the reader comes away with a clear understanding of what time of attack it was; that the animal, by all accounts, was not in attack mode but play mode when it play-attacked a human being to death.
Normally, on Wikipedia, when a person attacks an animal, and the animal attacks back, we consider it an animal attack on a person. Like if a person were spear fishing and hit a hammerhead and it turned around with the spear in it and killed the guy, we normally but that on the list. This happens a lot at Coyote attacks on humans; a coyote will attack someone's dog, and the human, defending the dog, attacks the coyote, and then the coyote bites the person, that goes on the list. It's just a series of attacks and counter-attacks. So we'd have to explain why we shouldn't do the same here if it ever happens that a person attacks a dog and the dog kills him in self-defence.
If a person were feeding a dog and the dog bites him and the bite kills him, that's an attack. If you're playing with a hand-puppet and the dog thinks elmo is real and attacks it and bites your hand through the puppet and you die, that's a fatal dog attack, too. And maybe an important lesson for our readers, who knows, it could be a very good thing for an individual reader to learn that such a thing can happen. Maybe they'd be more careful about that and someone might not get hurt or worse.
If a dog attacks a person and leaves a very small wound and the person shrugs off the would and doesn't get proper treatment and dies of a disease contracted by the dog bite, like Ada Clare, then we include it on the list. And as I recall, there was not too long ago a coonhound that, just out of nowhere, who knows why, bit its master just one short bite and release. He wasn't badly hurt so he didn't go to the doctor until he noticed it was more than just a little infected, but by then it was already too late. He'd gotten blood poisoning or septicemia or some such and died. A story well worth remembering for our readers! Just goes to show you, even a small animal bite can kill you if you don't get treated promptly. Wasn't a professor in Oxford who died that way after being attacked by a cat? Go to the doctor and get it treated promptly and either determine the animal wasn't rabid or start precautionary treatments. Rabies is maybe the worst way you can die.
So how do you suggest we bring the article in line with WP:LSC to have selection criteria that are "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources"? One way would be to change the title of the article to "Dog Bite Related Fatalities in the US." Onefireuser (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That may have been the best editorial judgement for those editors in the context of that publication at that time, but from that fact it does not necessarily follow that we must do the same thing here given this quite different context. Wikipedia normally names such articles "() attack": Shark attack, Dingo attack, Tiger attack, and so on. Deviating from such precedent would change the usual nature and scope of such articles and could have widespread ramifications. It should therefore not be done without a good explanation of why an exception should be made in this case, or perhaps whether the rest of such articles shouldn't also follow suit, given the improved Wikipedia:PRECISION grounds being put forward as an override to WP:COMMONNAME that as apparently suggested by you above.
Taken as so argued, I'd reply with an appeal to reader welfare. On this page, we discuss article improvement, but improvement in the interest of who? The reader, of course. So, if it's true that people do die from not getting small bites treated or catching disease from dog bites, couldn't that conceivably be important information for the readers? I would appreciate being told that if it were true. This is why I have started a new sub-section, below, and the point I make there about Ada Clare. My point here is to ask how the reader will benefit from moving this to Dog bite related fatalities in the United States and the resulting effect on the nature of this article by narrowing the scope so as to restrict this article to only exsanguination and such, which might predictably skew the data towards those fatalities inflicted by animals much larger and more powerful than the one that killed Ida Claire. Let the editors of that article choose perhaps quite rightly to limit their scope as may be best in that context, and let us do the same for this one.
This is very much like the CDC's decision to exclude prisoners killed by police dogs and such from their data. There is no reason we should follow suit! A dog bite fatality in the USA is a dog bite fatality in the USA - period. So if we can cite a death by police dog attack, we should include it; the fact that the government chooses to ignore deaths by government dogs in government studies doesn't mean we should or have to as well. Chrisrus (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misunderstood me. By changing the title from Attacks to DBRFs, I would not expect to narrow the article but to broaden it, and simultaneously bring it in line with WP:LSC. Currently, if we are calling it "attacks", we should only be including attacks. But many people die of bites that are not attacks. We do not have good reliable sources in all cases to say which bites are really attacks and which are simply bites that for unfortunate reasons proved fatal. However, I am not saying that we need to change the title. All I am saying is that we need to bring the article in line with WP:LSC and one way to do that would be to change the title. I am sure there are other ways to do it as well. We need to define our selection criteria. They cannot be so subjective. Onefireuser (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did Rabid Dogs Kill Many Americans??

If I may digress, speaking of Ada Clare, we only know about her rabid dog bite death because she was a so famous. Surely, she couldn't have been the only one. There must be some record somewhere of how many people have died from rabies as a result of dog bite in this country. I know it doesn't happen anymore, because pretty much all American dogs' have rabies vaccine tags, so they all jingle when they move. So there probably hasn't been a rabies death caused by a dog bite in the USA in a very long time. But there was a time when that wasn't so! Or so I thought, but once I tried to Google scholar up some sources about how many Americans died the same way Ada Clare did, but after a while I gave up because I couldn't find anything. I invite any reader to try your luck and research skills, because such events are definitely fatal dog attacks in the USA and should be included in this article. Chrisrus (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a topic I am quite familiar with through my work. As recently as the beginning of the 20th century, this country was seeing over 100 human rabies deaths per year.[1] More than 90% of these were from dog bites. The number of deaths dropped rapidly during the 20th century and we haven't had a known human case from dog bite in at least a couple decades. However, as late as 1956, there were still tons of human deaths. For example, in that year, Texas alone had 4 human deaths from rabid dog bites.[2] During 1980-1996, there were 2 people who died of rabies strains carried by US domestic dogs, but neither of them had a known bite from a rabid dog.[3] During 1960-1979 there were 7 human fatalities from rabid dog exposures received in the US.[4] These included some with known small bites and other with only saliva exposure. Some of the saliva exposure cases were clearly non-attacks: for example being licked by a friendly puppy. However, one patient had "a nonbite exposure to an aggressive stray dog." The incidence of rabies in domestic dogs in the US dropped dramatically during the 1950s, with over 8,000 cases in 1946 and only 412 in 1965.[5] During 1946-1965 there were 236 confirmed human rabies deaths in the US, mostly occuring during the 1940s. Dogs in the United States were responsible for 119 of these deaths. Prior to the 1940s, there were dozens of human deaths due to rabid dogs per year. Some of these were reported in the news media, but there is no reason to think that collecting news reports would give an accurate picture of the true epidemiology of human deaths from rabid dogs. Some examples of the news reports are: 193219341906-19111923191918911943
There are obviously dozens more reports like this, but I do not see the value in including them in this page. All the scholarly works (in other words, all the WP:RS) on DBRFs have excluded deaths due to infection and it would be wise for us to do the same. Deaths due to infection are very different from deaths due to exsanguination or direct nervous system trauma. Onefireuser (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, it's very interesting and would make a fine contribution to the article. Please reconsider your position and go ahead and add this information about Fatal Dog Attacks in the USA of the Ada Claire type. Why should they be excluded? Yes, they are different from other fatal dog attacks in the USA, but they are still fatal dog attacks in the USA. Chrisrus (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Studies

There are two additional studies that go unmentioned, that are worth inclusion. The first is from the Puppycide Database Project, here: https://puppycidedb.com/analysis.html#dog-bite-death-rates

The second is from the National Canine Research Council, here: http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/reported-bites-decreasing/

The two studies use death certificates; national vital statistics report, WISQARS, and a few other primary sources. Jay Dubya (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Human Rabies". CDC.
  2. ^ "History of Rabies in Texas". Texas Dept of State Health Services. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  3. ^ Noah, Donald. "Epidemiology of Human Rabies in the United States, 1980 to 1996". Ann Intern Med. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  4. ^ Anderson, LJ. "Human rabies in the United States, 1960 to 1979: epidemiology, diagnosis, and prevention". Ann Intern Med. PMID 6712036. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  5. ^ Held, JR. "Rabies in man and animals in the United States, 1946-65". Public Health Rep. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States&oldid=634127306"