Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 4

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)

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)


 * Thanks!Chrisrus (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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
 * It's not my edit; I didn't do it; I just agreed. Chrisrus (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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: NORN. Astro$01 (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Fair enough: WP:Verifiability points to the WP:RSN reliable sources noticeboard, so I have posted a question there at WP:RSN. -- Astro$01 (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


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

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Therefore, I will use this citation ti change it back to "retriever". Chrisrus (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that is a start. One source (The Post and Courier) cites the authorities and says "golden retriever-Labrador mix"; the other (Associated Press, as aggregated by The Huffington Post) 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * OK, one argument at a time:
 * "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.
 * "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 says so, even though a different source says she was killed by a dog without specifying the breed.. 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.
 * "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)
 * 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)

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. Her obituary states that she "passed away peacefully." 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
 * It does seem like a big synthesis issue - better to just remove it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

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
 * American Humane Association
 * ASPCA
 * Humane Society

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

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)
 * 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

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

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)


 * 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)

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
 * 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)

✅ Chrisrus (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"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)
 * 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
 * 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)
 * 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
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * I agree. We've made major improvements and I think this is a ✅ 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

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)

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

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)
 * 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

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)

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)

Are we done with this one? Chrisrus (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Does that mean you think we should include her or not include her?Onefireuser (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser
 * Well, I know from this: [] 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)

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
 * The short answer is that the article meets WP:POV standards.
 * "Appropriateness for an Encyclopedia" was resolved under Proposed Deletion. The consensus was to keep the article in the form it has today.
 * "National Canine Research Center" was addressed. The consensus was that the National Canine Research Center failed WP:RS.
 * "requested change" regarding breed identification was rejected by consensus in 2011.
 * "2011 is way off" has been resolved by ensuring all of the fatal dog attacks for 2011 have WP:RS sources identified.
 * 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).
 * 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.
 * 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)

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
 * Age
 * m/f
 * 1) Breed
 * 2) 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)

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


 * 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)


 * What if we did it this way:


 * 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

Chrisrus (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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

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
 * 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)

One option:

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

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:

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

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)

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)
 * 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
 * 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)
 * 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

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)
 * 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
 * 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)
 * It's been moved again, here. 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)
 * 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)

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

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)

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)
 * 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
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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
 * 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)
 * 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
 * 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)
 * 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
 * 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)

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)