Talk:Dog bite/Archive 1

"Large herbivore" reference
The phrase "large herbivore" refers to such animals as elephants, hippopotamuses, rhinoceroses, giraffes, moose, Cape buffalo, and even such livestock as horses, cattle, and camels that, although not predatory, can kill people by crushing, goring, throwing, trampling, or kicking -- arguably in defense of themselves from the prospect of human predation upon them. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs mention of dog-wolf hybrids
Article needs mention of dog-wolf hybrids and their (alleged or not, I don't care) higher likelihood of attacking people. Abductive (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Diane Whipple
I am removing this link from the See Also section, I believe that this serves no purpose and just refers to a dog attack victim in general; if we listed every person who has ever been bitten by a dog on that WikiPage, Wikipedia's MySQL Database Size would be astronomical. I think that we should keep the see also or more info links to info strictly relating to the topic itself. NitrogenTSRH (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea where that link came from but I don't see any problem with keeping it there. Diane Whipple was a very high profile dog attack victim and the case received enormous media coverage in the U.S. because of (1) the viciousness of the attack and (2) the bizarre fact that the dog owners were lawyers who were apparently keeping dogs for a prison gang. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it should stay as well. Even though this is an old discussion, they just recently had something on TV about her attack. 21:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Mokoniki

I agree. There was a special hour report on the show True Crime Aphrodite Jones on the Investigation Discovery channel.

Self-Defence
The article does not mention nor link to any aspect of self-defence against attacking dogs. I think this should be amended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.73.138 (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

do not trust screens, fences, or door latches
As should be obvious, dogs are powerful creatures. Dogs can easily break through flimsy window screens, and it is most likely the snout that does so -- a snout that bites. Dogs can knock down, break through, burrow under, vault, climb over, or otherwise circumvent fences.

This is personal experience, and it is not likely unique. I was doing work that required me to visit houses, and four medium-sized dogs charged the door as I approached. Those dogs were apparently protecting their home from burglars, and must have thought that I was one. They pushed at the door, and I could see the latch start to give. I got out of there. I forget the breed of dog, but a little math suggested that those four dogs together could have killed me about as effectively as one tiger.Pbrower2a (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dog bite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501205632/http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Dog-Bites/biteprevention.html to https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/dog-bites/biteprevention.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Dog bite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150411211206/http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf to http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150411211206/http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf to http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

missing info
Are dog bite wounds not very likely to get infected compared to other wounds, requiring routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis? While infection is mentioned in the article, I don't this point is stressed enough. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dog bite wounds do sometimes get infected and preventative antibiotics are occasionally prescribed depending on the type of wound. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Content and refs now inserted mentioning infection. This information is still incomplete as of this date. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  22:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Dog bite hat - not needed IMO
I don't think this meets the requirements for a hat note. It doesn't merit its own article, and really seems more wp:advert than encyclopedic. I expect to kill it in a day or 2 unless there is some support for it.User talk:Unfriend12 20:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

‎Defence
Since dogs, both feral dogs and domesticated ones, are populated over residential areas, it is plausible that you might encounter one whilst walking within residential areas. If you find yourself threatened with a possible dog attack, holding something up high above your head may deter the dog. Height is an advantage you have over dogs and they will be wary of you being able to bear an object down upon them if they attack. Try to stay calm and do not show any fear if possible, as dogs prefer you to be under stress before attacking. Do not turn your back on the dog or run as dogs will instinctively chase you. Instead, back away slowly. Do not look into the dog's eyes, instead look above the dog. Talk calmly to the dog whilst planning the best exit route (or route leading to a populated area), and evaluate any weapons or instruments of protection that you can muster in that moment of forced calmness.


 * This is a how-to and needs re-writing if it is to be kept at all. Rich Farmbrough, 22:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

warning
It would be easier to write an article about the dangers of nuclear waste than one about dogs. Why? People lose their minds when it comes to their pets. All the indignant, still alive and out of jail, pit bull owners are in full force. I bet they keep vandalizing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.68.79 (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Golden Retriever maulings
Can someone please cite this: "In 1999, more child maulings by dogs were as a result of a child being left alone with a Golden Retriever than with any other breed of do". It's a bold claim that I haven't been able to confirm with a google search.
 * Huh, me neither. I'm going to remove it. It came from the Dog article when I copied huge chunks here wholesale, and the history on that page is so humongous because of all the ongoing vandalism that it would take a tremendous amount of work to figure out who added that info to ask for citations. Someone could proabaly do it, though, with a bit of patience.  Elf | Talk 17:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this would fit into the article but one of the safest defenses I know of is a simple spray bottle with water. It used to work for me when I was jogging. Seemed every loose dog in the neighborhood wanted to chase me, and yes they can overtake a human. I got jumped upon a couple of times and a quick spray ended that. If it doesn't fit in it is still a non violent alternative in most cases.-- Dakota  ~   °  07:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Golden retrievers are one of the most common breeds of dogs, and even if they are well-behaved, there will be occasional accidents.

No small child should ever be left alone with any large dog -- and Golden Retrievers are large dogs. Any dog can snap if something goes wrong -- and small children might do something very unwise. The teeth and claws are still large and sharp. (Don't discount dogs' claws; I have needed medical attention for an infected dog scratch -- an inadvertent one from a cocker spaniel).

Children should be told to treat dogs according to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Just as you don't want to be kicked, don't kick a dog. Just as you don't want someone to poke you in the eye, don't poke a dog in the eye. Just as you wouldn't want your tail pulled (if you had a tail), don't pull on a dog's tail. Add to that -- never take food from the dog.

That applies to any dog irrespective of breed. Someone who can't abide by the Golden Rule with humans will be in big trouble with one of the most powerful predators on Earth. Paul from Michigan 05:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Advice
some of this article comes across as advice, which is not consistent with the tone of most wikipedia articles. instead of "Approach dogs from the front. They could be startled if approached from behind and at the least may knock you over.", it should say something like "many dogs are startled when approached from behind, causing aggression" and then allow the reader to make a sensible decision of what to do. -anon 124.177.219.146 (talk) 18. feb 2007 kl. 08:40


 * I agree. This is not encyclopedic. This belongs on something like WikiHow. When I visit an encyclopedia, I don't wanna know how I should behave in any conditions. I just want to know more about the subject. --Ysangkok 17:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * this article is very poorly written.69.207.38.102 01:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * is this article written as a joke, "even the small ones have sharp teeth", and "big dogs can knock you down". Is there a section on the big bad wolf if I read more. Please rewrite the article, I was looking for information on how to treat a dog bite.128.12.168.8 (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an article on the Big Bad Wolf.

Isn't it self-evident? Dogs become dangerous animals if they are mistreated or threatened, and dog teeth can do considerable damage to human flesh. The claws can lacerate flesh, and infection is a possibility with any animal bite or scratch. Dogs can overpower people with falls that can cause bone fractures. Dogs are much better-behaved than any other animals capable of killing and eating people... but where human stupidity meets a large predator, tragedy is always a possibility even if the predator is ordinarily well-behaved. The threshold for retaliation from a dog is far higher than for bears, wolves, cats, hyenas, snakes, seals, or crocodilians; in some cases, simply passing by makes one prey to some of those killers. Dogs know better and usually avoid confrontations, but even they have limits of tolerance. They defend themselves and their companions forcefully.

You wouldn't throw stones at a large dog, would you? Such is either amorality or profound folly. QED. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Q&A section
I removed this unsourced, repeatedly Or tagged Q&A piece that may have been intended to stimulate discussion or further research, in which case it belongs here. It is difficult to establish the inherent human aggressiveness of a breed in generalOr. To establish meaningful results, research would have to consider such factors as the following:Or In cases of bites from unfamiliar animals such as strays, the breed description can be inaccurate. Or When a breed's popularity increases, it might be more likely to be the first choice among owners with no previous experience with dogs because it is a breed which they've heard of. Novice owners might not know how to properly socialize a dog.Or This would be a difficult number to discover, because it seems likely that not many owners would readily admit to it. Also even though it may not be intended to train a dog to be aggressive, it is well documented that many dog owners do inadvertently allow a dog to think of itself as dominant.Or This can happen in any breed, and responsible breeders would generally not breed such a dog. However, as a breed's popularity increases, people who know nothing about breeding or genetics (or who don't care), might breed dogs who otherwise shouldn't be bred.Or Most statistics published show only the number of dogs of various breeds involved in attacks, not the percentage of dogs of that breed in the area who were involved in attacks. Any popular breed is more likely to show up with more attacks because there are simply more dogs, just as a less popular breed will show up as having a higher percentage of attacks because there are simply fewer dogs. The most popular dog breed in America (in 2007) is the Labrador Retriever.Or One approach which acknowledges that it is difficult to determine the dangerousness of a specific breed takes the strategy of regulating all dogs over a certain size or weight, which would greatly reduce the chance of a dog being large enough to inflict serious harm. This, of course, would remove from circulation most of the hundreds of breeds available in the world today, most of which would never deliberately harm a human.Or / edg ☺ ☭ 14:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are the statistics available reliable for identifying specific breeds?
 * What proportion of a breed's owners are knowledgeable about dog training?
 * What proportion of owners deliberately encourage aggression in their dogs, or keep their dogs in a manner which fosters aggressive traits?
 * What proportion of dogs involved in acts of aggression against humans came from a known mother or father who exhibited such aggression?
 * What proportion of that breed in the community exhibits aggression against humans?

Pediatrics Study
There was a study published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2006 that ranked German Shepherds and Dobermans far higher than other breeds in number of attacks on children. Is there any reason not to give this equal credence to the Clifton study? Clockwork (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The study was limited to Australian dog populations rather than American or European populations, I am however willing to give it more credence to the Clifton study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.151.33 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * First, all cards on the table, obviously you are writing this because you are concerned with the perception of pit bulls.This study was undertaken in the area, Australia, after breed specific legislation impacting pit bulls was introduced in many areas. If you actually read the study, pit bulls were so rare that they were not included in the table of most popular breeds.  Further, the analysis does show a breed specific effect which pit bullers often deride.  It so happens at data where pit bulls are not heavily regulated are able to show their stronger breed effect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.68.79 (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Some Logical Fallacies
Statistics wouldn't suggest anything except the number of attacks. The aggressiveness of a particular breed couldn't be determined based on number of attacks alone. Some attacks can go unreported, and accessability of humans to unfamiliar dogs would be needed to be taken into account, etc.
 * This argument can be used against most data sets. Some things going unreported is part and parcel.  It might need mentioning but it surely does not mean that the data is useless.

A growing population of a certain breed does not necessarily correlate with an increase of attacks with that breed. Also the CDC published statistics note that the ratio of a certain breed's attacks with its population isn't accurate because there are no accurate census of dog breeds.

Nevertheless, statistics would be useful, to suggest # of attacks.
 * Focus on what we do know. If a breed seems to be making up X % of attacks and we know based upon common sense, and some imperfect data sets, that much less than X % of the overall dog population is this breed, then it is rational to tentatively conclude that there is an elevated risk with the breed in question.  So, your argument is that imperfect data should not be mentioned because people cannot think about the implications of various scenarios surrounding this data.  That is false.

21:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)21:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC) One thing that I like about http://www.dogbitelaw.com 's analysis is that they make an attempt to draw a clear distinction between the issue of bites and "dangerous breeds" because there's really no information out there - none that I've seen at least - to indicate that a higher propensity to bite with any of the "dangerous breeds". I have, however, seen some reports that the highest bite rates, in the US at least, are Cocker Spaniels. 1.) There is a massive and longstanding upward trend in the number of bites every year and 2.) bigger/stronger dogs (including, but not limited to the ones usually classified as "dangerous") do more damage when they bite. These are two seperate issues IMO. Their statistics page is at http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.141.201.24 (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do people hopelessly, and it seems purposefully, conflate serious attacks with mere bites? Only an agenda, or ADHD, makes someone change the topic from maulings to nips via yorkie poo.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.68.79 (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please look at the links for the Sachs et al article. All they yield is an error message from Adobe Acrobat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.184.95 (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

One issue I've found is the disparity between statistics used in determining vicious breeds, as all the statistics other than the CDC's death certificate survey is based on press reports. The statistics indicate that 2/3rds of reports covering breeds labeled as vicious are severe, while 5/6th of all other breeds data used is severe. The breed statistics also group the pit bull type breeds into one category, the only data set that is not categorized by breed. In addition the probability that the pit bull terrier breed bite numbers is inflated is quite high as look alike breeds like the Dogo Argentino, Patterdale Terrier and Olde English Bulldogge and breeds commonly misidentified with pit bulls like the Rhodesian Ridgeback, Vizsla, Cane Corso and Doge De Bordeaux are rarely or never reported in dog attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.148.64 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the supposed pit bull look alikes you mention are exceedingly rare. I dispute the ridgeback and viszla confusion, however.  Your second sentence above needs rewritten, it cannot be parsed.  Also, you do not seem concerned about other breeds that look like something else.  Why might that be?  Last, you deride lumping AmStaffs, Staffs, and APBTs into the same group when in fact they are all HIGHLY related and people often register the same dog with the AKC as an AmStaff and with the UKC as an APBT.  Another agenda pusher with regards to pit bulls.  It can be spotted from a few miles off by now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.68.79 (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Breed-specific attacks
The pseudo-science that is used - in an attempt to disprove that Rottweilers are inherently aggressive (which they are - and that's why people keep them) - is fundamentally flawed, and just another example of an author using statistics wrongly to 'prove' whatever point they want. A one one-hundredth percent risk of fatal attack by a Rottweiler is in fact (in terms of risk of fatality such as car accident, murder, lightning strike, etc.) fairly significant. And that is for the average US citizen: I, for example, haven't even seen a Rottweiler in about three years. Compare my average risk with that of a child who lives with a Rottweiler in the house, or in a street where one resides. That child runs a risk much higher than the national average. Similarly the author makes the mistake of calculating the risk by dividing the number of fatal attacks per year by the population of Rottweilers; this is wrong because a dog will live for roughly 15 years, in each of which it is approximately equally as likely to assault someone fatally. The risk is therefore about fifteen times what the author suggests (the figure of one one-hundredths of a percent only holds true if each dog is only capable of attack in one year of its lifespan. All-in-all, I believe that the author is erroneously using statistics to try to disprove what is a widely accepted view: that Rottweilers are more likely to kill people than pooches are. 194.130.163.67 14:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC) England_the_Great 14:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "And that is for the average US citizen: I, for example, haven't even seen a Rottweiler in about three years. Compare my average risk with that of a child who lives with a Rottweiler in the house, or in a street where one resides." ...from above....ding ding ding ding...we have a winner...someone who understands conditional probability.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.68.79 (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't read particulairly encyclopediacly either.

Also, the citation for the number of pit bull attacks is slanted. Under pure bred dogs, it has the breed "pit bull type" which is not a registered breed with any dog organization, and which can include Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, a number of mastiff breeds, Rhodisian Ridgeback, and some other dogs. "Pit bull type" is a more accurate description of mixed breed dogs where the best guess is they may have one or more of these breeds in their mix. Since they group all of these different breeds together in the purebred section under "pit bull type" however, the article falsely reports a larger number of pit bull attacks than the American Pit Bull Terrier, or any one of the other breeds, is responsible for, therefore skewing the results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.147.18 (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "each dog is only capable of attack in one year of its lifespan." This is true, DUCY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.172.111 (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the unsigned person above is insinuating that most dogs are euthanized after an attack. First, that is incorrect.  Second, even under that assumption the the way the math is carried out in the article is still incorrect and an underestimate of risk. Wvguy8258 (talk)wvguy8258

Actually a Rottweiler's expected life span is 10-12 years, far from the 15 you suggest. Also only 0.000000036% of the American population is fatally attacked by a dog of any kind so I'm not really sure what the one one-hundredth percent chance of being killed by a Rottweiler is.99.195.118.51 (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Overall, this part of the article comes off as trying very specifically to make a personal point. It should be improved or eliminated. Further, it tends to ignore non-fatal, but life-altering, attacks. Wvguy8258 (talk)wvguy8258

Misleading statement about "dogs near humans they know"
I believe that this statement in the article: "When dogs are near humans with whom they are familiar, they normally become less aggressive. This is because familiarity with their 'pack members' lowers the likelihood of attack. However, it should not be assumed that because a dog has been with humans, it will not attack anybody - even a family member." is misleading if not outright false. Please consult with certified animal behaviorists about this.

The whole entry seems to miss the fact that different breeds, and different dogs in the case of mixed breeds, have different motivations. There are quite a number of breeds who are protectors and quite a number more who are herders. In my experience (running a dog rescue organization, non-certified trainer of my personal therapy dogs) I have seen more bites happen when a dog protects the "humans with whom they are familiar" than from any other reason. I am excluding rough play here, I am talking about aggressive bites. Protective breeds like Rotweilers, Dobermans, GSD, Akitas, Chow Chow, and similar will protect their owners or charges even thought the owner or charge has no clue they are being protected. In some cases, that involves biting someone whom the dog sees as a threat.

This whole article needs serious rework by a team of experienced and certified animal behaviorists, particular those few with scientific backgrounds. But this sentence in particular is misleading and could result in MORE injuries rather than fewer.

Dave Walters, PMP, Chairman of the Board for Pawfect Match Rescue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.203.176 (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Dog attack
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Dog attack's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CDC": From Doberman Pinscher: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf US Centers for Disease Control: Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. Retrieved March 25, 2007 From List of fatal dog attacks in the United States:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

How many people are survivors of dog attacks?
The article mentions that, in the United States, 2% of people are bitten each year. The article doesn't mention the lifetime stats, or similar stats for other countries. Also, are survivors of previous dog attacks more vulnerable to additional attacks? 173.66.211.53 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Material and Citations
In relation to a the recent deletion of content and a reference, the following note was provided: "That is a link to an entire collection of publications on an advocacy website; it's an external link and NOT a citation. Of course, we could use this one https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2017.php, or we could just remove the sentence. I preferred the 'citation needed' template, but whatever."

Addressing that comment, first, there is nothing inherently wrong with using as a reference a tertiary source that in turn presents a number of publications in support of its content -- and to the extent that the tertiary source includes a better reference, that reference can be added in its stead instead of leaving. content unsupported. Second, there is nothing inherently wrong in using an advocacy website as a reference. WP:PARTISAN Third, all references should be external to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia pages should not be used as references. Guidelines for sourcing, which include external links used as citations, are discussed at Reliable sources and Citing sources.

The issues with going through an article or series of articles, removing references, and tagging the content as "citation needed", include the fact that the deletion of an imperfect reference will generally not improve an article and, unless you plan to revisit the article in reasonably short order to add replacement references, it serves to create work for other editors. I believe that there are more than 400,000 articles that include a "citation needed" tag, a number that the project is best served by reducing. Consider the suggestion from Citation needed, "Before adding a tag, at least consider the following alternatives, one of which may prove much more constructive:... If a statement sounds plausible, and is consistent with other statements in the article, but you doubt that it is totally accurate, then consider making a reasonable effort to find a reference yourself. In the process, you may end up confirming that the statement needs to be edited or deleted to better reflect the best knowledge about the topic."

Some references are insufficiently trustworthy or are sufficiently problematic that they should be removed, and some content is obviously wrong and should be removed, but when content appears accurate and references are adequate I suggest that we keep in mind the concept of progress, not perfection, and work to improve the article rather than deleting references and content that appear accurate but are less than perfect. Arllaw (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Confusing refs
These references were at the bottom of the article but I couldn't find content that they were linked to. So I am moving them here and if any other editor knows anything about them, feel free to reinsert to support the content. Best Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  22:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * World Almanac and Book of Facts 1985. Doubleday.
 * World Almanac and Book of Facts 1988. World Almanac Books.
 * Breed-Specific Legislation in the United States. Linda S. Weiss, Michigan State University – Detroit College of Law (2001). Animal Legal and Historical Web Center
 * "Nonfatal Dog Bite—Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments", CDC MMWR, July 4, 2003.
 * "Nonfatal Dog Bite—Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments", CDC MMWR, July 4, 2003.

D of RS
An editor deleted, as "a poor source", what the Huffington Post reported, which was accurately attributed. That was a proper entry. The Huffington Post is clearly an RS, and it saw fit to report this as it was reflected in this article. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a low quality source and we tend to avoid the popular press. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * DocJames is correct it was a low quality reference, please see Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the edit in question. In my opinion, the source looks fine. The original source, dogsbite.org, looks legitimate. This is a relevant web page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Axl..the source you indicate states DogsBite.org is a national dog bite victims' group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks.Through our work, we hope to protect both people and pets from future attacks.(at the bottom of the page)....Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) states, and I quote,  "Press releases, newsletters, advocacy and self-help publications, blogs and other websites, and other sources contain a wide range of biomedical information ranging from factual to fraudulent, with a high percentage being of low quality" ...logic dictates there is an inconsistency between "source" and stated "reliable sources"...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Says the editor who was favorably quoting another advocacy group (the American Cancer Society) just a day or two ago. ;-)  Seriously, advocacy groups are poor sources for some things, but they're not actually prohibited as sources.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This doesn't matter because the web page of the advocacy group has enough references to give us as many citations we need. We don't even need to cite the dogbites.org. I have already inserted references that I found on dogbites.org since they collect so many. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  22:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

this is question about epidemiology - a question answered with scientific methods, and in my view, using published scientific literature or government agencies that do epidemiological research, is way more solid and reliable sourcing than using popular media reporting on data provided by an advocacy group. We always want to aim high for reliability and not just use what is at hand. I wouldn't use the HuffPo/dogbite.org stuff and support its removal, in place of the much better sources, as shown in the dif above.Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is about dogs biting. The issue is not a "medical issue". And the Huffington Post is certainly an appropriate RS. For the issue of dogs biting. If anyone has a problem with it as an RS for this purpose -- the ostensible reason for the doctor's deletion -- bring it to the RSN. But please don't edit war. Saying that "the number of people bitten by dogs, and the dogs that do the biting, is a medical issue" is obviously silly. Epeefleche (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

silly...the importance of a dog bite??? (not a medical issue?)...''Dogs are the source of the vast majority of human rabies deaths.Immediate wound cleansing and immunization within a few hours after contact with a suspect rabid animal can prevent the onset of rabies and death. Every year, more than 15 million people worldwide receive a post-exposure vaccination to prevent the disease – this is estimated to prevent hundreds of thousands of rabies deaths annually. '' as per the World Health Organization,(while the specific edit, has to do with "the violent interactions between humans and canines", any possible trauma caused by a canine is surely medical and needs proper sources) I agree with both .Jytdog and Doc James  --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm have a strong feeling far better WP:MEDRS sources than popular press sources like Huffington Post can be found for these claims. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No -- of course its not a medical issue. The sentence at issue relates to " The Huffington Post reported that DogsBite.org, a US group that tracks dog bites, blamed pit bull breeds for 62 percent of the 325 people killed by dog attacks from 2005 to 2014." This is not any more of a medial issue than killings in World War II are a medical issue. And of course the Huffington Post is an RS.  As is the Associated Press -- from which the story comes. Epeefleche (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not looked at either source, but would comment that the epidemiology of dog bite wounds should be covered by medrs (e.g. which age group are usually involved, and how this accident varies in incidence around the globe), but a statement about which breed is most commonly implicated is probably ok with rs and does not require medrs. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

There are 15 recent reviews on pubmed including this one from the AFP  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So this is one of those complicated kinds of statements. Axl and Epeefleche are correct:  the source is adequate for the statement given.  This is not technically a statement of epidemiology.  This is technically a statement of what some organization said (about epidemiology).
 * Also, the source that shows that the US government has done research is, technically, adequately cited to any source that discusses their funding. It's a primary source, but it does actually verify the material and thus is better than nothing.
 * If you want direct epidemiology information (and we do, don't we?) or something more substantial (e.g., something that shows the US has funded research in this century), then please find a better source yourself. Probably any one of those 15 recent reviews would have been fine.  Upgrading information and sources is the constructive, collegial, and collaborative approach.  Blanking other people's attempts to help is the opposite.
 * NB that neither MEDRS nor WP:V actually permit you to remove "adequate" sources or adequately sourced information merely because you think a better source might exist. You may upgrade a weak source to a good one; you may not revert someone who failed to produce a gold-plated academic source on the first try.  This is a project for collaboration, not a project for punishing people who aren't perfect.  (And, yes, most people do feel punished when you revert the addition of peer-reviewed primary sources, even if you don't think that they "should" feel that way.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * its not about punishment, its about putting the best information out there for the reader WAID . In this case a dog bite speaks for its self...that is why you would want to improve every aspect of the article --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone is free to add a source. Instead here, a perfectly proper RS (and the text it supported) was deleted. WhatamIdoing, in his carefully reasoned statement above, hits the nail on the head.  1) The source is a proper RS for the statement. 2) Upgrading refs is the constructive, collegial, and collaborative approach--which is the goal at WP.  Blanking  other people's attempts to help, by deleting proper RSs and text is the opposite. Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ozzie, it doesn't matter if you intend for it to be a punishment. People actually do feel punished, shamed, and rejected.  The most reliable route to getting rid of a good-faith new editor is to revert their work.  The best way to keep them is to build on it.  Every time you consider hitting the undo button, you're making a choice about whether to encourage or discourage other people from trying to contribute.  Besides, if you actually wanted "the best information out there for the reader", then you'd be consistently upgrading sources rather than blanking other people's contributions.  "No information" is not "the best information".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This ref was not needed for anything "Hanna, TL, Selby LA. Characteristics of the human and pet populations in animal bite incidents recorded at two Air Force bases. Public Health Rep. 1981;96:580–584." Using 1980s primary sources is not needed.

I have used a better source for the content in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * RSN. Discussion at RSN supports the fact that the Huffington Post/AP ref was an appropriate RS source for the statement at issue.  See here. Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a good 2015 literature review on the topic here . There is no reason to use the popular press. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That has a number of issues including in what country are we talking about. We know that dog bites kill 10 of thousands via rabies globally. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have started adding international information but have had to do some serious culling of unreferenced content. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  22:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)