Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 7

"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)

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

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


 * How about a baby jumping swing thing?Onefireuser (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

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


 * I've now undone this several times. Any ideas why this person keeps making this change? Is there something in the sources that I'm not seeing? If this is supported by the sources, let's keep it in. If not, then it certainly shouldn't be in Wikipedia.Onefireuser (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser


 * Yes, that is annoying, to say the least. Kudos to you for reverting it so promptly, Onefireuser.  As you probably know, the last two times this was done it was credited to an IP address 71.62.254.34, which if you paste to a Google search window turns out to be in Staunton, Virginia, 24401.  Special:Contributions/71.62.254.34 shows a contribution history of only these two edits, and USER:71.62.254.34 does not exist at this typing.


 * IP Staunton, VA, please do explain this edit! Where are you getting that information? Why do you keep doing this? Chrisrus (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

And this article does not mention these four attacks. I think it should because this article's referent is "FDAs in the USA", with no such restrictions. Ok, it's fundamentally different if a prisoner tries to escape past the guard dogs but doesn't make it, yes, it's a very different phenomenon than the others here, I see that. All I'm saying is, an FDA in the USA is an FDA in the USA. Chrisrus (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and we already have at least a couple other incidents that involved guard dogs who were apparently "at work": John Doe on April 10, 2006; Richard Adams November 9, 2006. Of note, in the Jesse Porter case, the dog apparently killed a person who was completely unrelated to the dog's actual "work."Onefireuser (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Mad Dogs
It seems that most of the dogs involved in these incidents are tested for rabies afterwards. Should we also include incidents in which the dog turns out to be rabid? Do we want to include fatal rabid dog attacks on this list?Onefireuser (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser
 * I looked into this before, when I added Ada Clare to the list.
 * I seem to recall mention of a man who not too long ago died of dog-bite related rabies in the US, but he'd been bitten abroad, flew here, and then developed the disease and died here, so it's not a FDA in the US.
 * The article Rabies quotes the CDC as saying that dogs rarely get rabies in the US anymore. This we can believe because we know pretty much all dogs here jingle when they move because they have these tags, a licence and proof of rabies vaccination, dangling from their collars, by law.
 * However, this didn't used to be the case. If this article reaches back further into history, my guess is we are going to start finding more and more deaths by rabid dog attacks.  We only know about Ada Clare because she was so famous.  Reason dictates she was not the only one of us who died in that horrific way, back in the old days before the vaccine, there might have been many thousands.
 * Its the rabies virus's life cycle to get into the brain, take it over, and make the victim violently insane, so they attack everything and everything, so that the evil little virus can get into another before the victim dies. So we can imagine that most rabies deaths transmitted by dogs in the US back then were the result of dog attacks.  However, we can't assume that to always be true because you can get rabies from simply being licked or just petting by a rabid dog, or by messily killing a rabid dog, or handling a dead rabid dog.  These should not be included because they aren't attacks.
 * Yes, I think, if we can establish that a person died of rabies or any other disease as a direct result of being attacked, it would definitely qualify for the list. If we find that there were thousands of such FDAs in the USA back in the old days, we may want to include that fact as a separate, text section, not on the list, at it is set up for individual events, not clusters or masses of them. I tried to do this, but never found statistics about dog attack rabies deaths in historic times in the US, but you or any reader of these words might have more success.
 * Shudders What a horror show working on this article is! I need a break.
 * full song Chrisrus (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

If we want to add something not seen in either of these two articles, we should just hold them up side by side and make any conclusions that are so reasonable that they'd pass WP:SYN's reasonability implication, and just come out to say pit bulls didn't start killing people until recently. Who knows? Someone might read that and realize something really important. Chrisrus (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Many good points. Not sure what the best thing to do is. However, your post does make me think that a starting point would be our use of the term "pit bull." In my understanding, the Texas study DID find some deaths by "pit bulls" because a Bull Terrier IS a pit bull. (See the numerous scholarly and media sources we've cited...) If they didn't find any deaths by APBTs of AmStaffs, that isn't too surprising because there probably weren't many of those dogs around and most of them may have been owned by responsible people. What exactly do you mean when you use the term "pit bull"?Onefireuser (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

See here: Talk:Pit_bull. The article Pit bull should not be saying that bull terriers are pit bulls. They are not. There I say what a pit bull is; one that belongs to the pit bull branch of the dog family tree, like Pete the Pup or theoretically the same thing recreated in the same way pit bulls were created in the first place. Bull terriers are neither of things, they are not pit bulls in terms of their branch on the family tree, nor are they pit bulls in morphology because of their totally different shaped skulls. All these references about the vagueness of the term "pit bull" are about mixed breed dogs that might approach pit bull morphology despite some other ancestry. U Texas didn't say those attacks were by mixed breeds, they said they were bull terriers, period. I want to delete the whole bit so it just says that there were no fatal pit bull attacks in the United States during that period. If we want we can say that the closest thing there was to a fatal pit bull attack were these bull terrier attacks, which shares a common ancestor with pit bulls but are not pit bulls, but dump the part about them actually being pit bulls, or called pit bulls, because they are not pit bulls. Chrisrus (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So when you say "pit bull," do you mean American Pit Bull Terrier/American Staffordshire Terrier? That is certainly one reasonable, yet narrow, definition of the term. It may be the best definition of the term. Unfortunately, as described in several of our references, this is not the definition used by the general public or by the news media.Onefireuser (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser
 * Those sources talking about the term "pit bull" being vague are referring mostly to mixed-breed dogs. Here, there is no indication the dogs in those attacks were mixed breeds.
 * Those sources do talk some about other purebred dogs, such as Dogos Argentinos and other breeds that are morphologically pretty darn similar to pit bulls, but have only some shared ancestry with Pete the Pup and other true pit bulls, and so could be called "pit bulls" (or, preferably to me, "pit-bull types") not based on ancestry but morphology, including the squarish head. But bull terriers don't have square heads, they have egg-shaped heads which sets them apart from such pit bull-types.  Bull terriers are their own thing in terms of shape and their widely varied ancestry.  I see no reason for us to interject such commentary about the findings of the Texas study when all we're supposed to be doing is summarizing it. It sounds like we're second-guessing them, which we should only do in the face of some clear evidence that they didn't mean what they said.  That's all I'm saying.  There may be some value in us noting differences in the studies that are not mentioned in the studies, or maybe noting that bull terriers are the closest thing genetically to a pit bull in the Texas study, but I don't want to say that those bull terriers in the Texas study actually were pit bulls in any sense. Chrisrus (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Disease
Disease caused by dog sh*t would need a separate article. Dogs are banned in the capital of Iceland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RollandRFanatick (talk • contribs) 10:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Reykjavik banned dogs in 1924. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RollandRFanatick (talk • contribs) 11:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Chrisrus (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See http://www.yukon-news.com/arts/the-dogs-of-reykjavik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

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

There is no way that anyone, shelter official or not, could determine that a dog is a Lab/Am. Bulldog mix by just by examining it. I could only speculate why the shelter official would have categorized Cooper that way, but it defies belief so let's just go with what the family and police said it was, some kind of pit-bullish-type-mix. Chrisrus (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that a lab-bulldog mix is a pit-bullish-type-mix. So I think it would be fine to call the dog that in the article as long as we make it clear somewhere in the article that we're using the VERY broad sense of the term "pit bull"--so broad that it would include a lab/bulldog mix. I agree with you that that broad definition is sometimes used. What I don't think we want to do is say that "Pit Bull" means APBT or AmStaff, and then say that someone's random short-haired mutt that was identified by animal control workers as a Lab mix is actually a "Pit Bull."
 * In the case of "Copper," I'm not sure if the police or the county Animal Shelter would be better at identifying the make-up of a mixed-breed dog, but I don't think it matters. I'm not sure why you think it is easier to identify a dog as "Pit Bull mix" than as a "Labrador mix" or as a "American Bulldog mix." All three breeds are common, and mixes of them look very similar.
 * All we know for sure is that the dog was not a pedigreed purebred. It seems that the most responsible thing for us to do in keeping with the standards of Wikipedia would be to report the uncertainty that is present in the RS's.Onefireuser (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser
 * In reply to "I agree.....is actually a "pit bull", how about "(x)-type mix"; e.g.: "collie-type mix" or "husky-type mix"? It implies well to the reader that we are speaking of the general morphology of the animal; that's all; the ancestry is unknown.  A mixed breed whose skull and body were roughly close to, say, a spaniel, terrier, retriever, or pit bull.
 * I didn't mean to imply that it's easier to identify a mixed-breed dog as "pit bull-mix" than it would a "Lab-mix" or a "bulldog mix". But looking just at this poster, http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Voith_Inter-observer%20Reliability%20Poster_11x17.pdf, (thanks for the link), it's obvious that it's impossible to identify a mix of unknown ancestry as something as specific as specifically 0.5 Labrador retriever and 0.5 American Bulldog, just by looking at it.  That's all I meant.  Experienced shelter workers are reasonably assumed capable of identifying many widely known pure-bred dogs, such as basset hounds or something, and maybe even describing accurately the general shape of mixed breeds by comparing them to breeds they know, "about midway between lab and Am bulldog morphologies", that would be meaningful.  But no one could know something as specific as "Lab/Am. Bulldog mix" by physical examination alone of dogs like those on the poster.  Chrisrus (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with you. However, in doing so, it seems we need to agree that all of the media/police/shelter guesses as to mix are just that--guesses. However, to play the devil's advocate, hear this:
 * You seem to be saying that it IS possible to say a dog is a "Pit Bull mix," perhaps meaning half APBT and half something else. Then it would follow that one could say a dog is a "Lab mix," meaning half Labrador Retriever and half something else. It would then also be possible to say that a dog is an "American Bulldog mix," meaning half American Bulldog and half something else. So basically, we're saying you can mix an APBT, Lab, or Am Bulldog with another breed and still recognize the original APBT, Lab, or Am Bulldog in the mix. But you seem to be saying that in the situation when you mix a Lab and an Am Bulldog, you lose the ability to see the original Lab and Am Bulldog. I'm not sure what would lead you to that conclusion. If anything, it seems that it would be EASIER to identify a dog that is half Lab and half Am Bulldog than a dog that is just half Lab and half unknown breed.
 * In summary, it seems that we need to call all of the mixed breed dogs on this page exactly that: "mixed breed" (which would be in keeping with the scientific research on visual identification of mixed breeds). Otherwise, I'm not buying the argument that a dog can't be identified as "Lab/Am Bulldog mix."Onefireuser (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser
 * Simply saying “mixed breed” doesn’t give much information, but if all we know is “mixed breed”, that’s what we should say. If we know more about mixed breeds, we should say more.  We could say "spitz-type mix" or "terrier-type mix", or (fill-the-general-dog-type) mix, where this information is available and reasonably reliable, is good to include.  In sum, if we know what type of mixed breed it is, that’s what we should say.  This is the case with Copper. Chrisrus (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

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


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

We could include these in main 2013 list along with any caveats and qualms that we should rightly inform the reader of and let him/her decide. Then, we should include all three in the end-of-year statistics. Chrisrus (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume you're joking about all 3 of these cases. The first one is a man that was running with two dogs behind him and got hit by a car. For that to be included in an encyclopedia entry on fatal dog attacks is absurd. The reference for the 2nd case says "Investigators said they believe that Ritz became sick and died and that the dogs...consumed her body to survive." There's nothing in there that says they attacked her. The 3rd case, Juan Campos, is the only one that seems like it could possibly be a fatal attack. But, unfortunately, we don't have any reliable sources to say it was. All we have are a bunch of articles saying that a 96 year-old man (96!) was found dead in his backyard and that the neighbor's dogs had bitten his leg after digging under the fence. Sure, from that description it seems possible that he was attacked and killed. But it also seems possible that he died because he was 96 and then the dogs had time to dig under the fence to get to the body. Either way, we have no way of knowing. The news sources don't say what the investigation determined about the cause of death.Onefireuser (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Onefireuser
 * The apparent cause of Juan Campos's death here is: dogs ate his leg off. There is no sign we have of any other kind of death, none.  Although reason dictates he could have died first of something else and then was eaten, we have no proof of any other cause of death.  That's just speculation.  Evidence trumps speculation, one would think. There is only one apparent cause of death.
 * We know James Harding was killed because he was being attacked by dogs. It's not a dog-bite-related-fatality, but it was a death caused by a dog attack.  They were attacking him, and he died as a result.  He would never have run out into the street and been killed by a car if those dogs hadn't been attacking him.  This referent of this article is dog attacks that kill, not dog-bites that do. That dog attack killed a man, so that dog attack should be included.  Chrisrus (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Juan Campos
On August 20th, 2013, in Katy, Texas, a man found the badly mauled dead body of his grandfather, 96-year old Juan Campos, in his backyard, along with that of his pet Chihuahua, and his neighbor's escaped pit bulls in the area, one attacking another dog. An autopsy is scheduled to determine whether he had died of another cause before being mauled by dogs. http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9225294 http://www.khou.com/news/local/Cy-Fair--221849341.html Chrisrus (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Text: "Part of one leg was missing." TV reporter: "Deputies say the man's leg, right leg, however, was half eaten by dogs." http://www.kcentv.com/story/23310219/man-after-apparent-dog-attack Chrisrus (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We should decide now before doing the summary for 2013 whether to include this attack. Can we find out the official cause of death somehow? Chrisrus (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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


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

Now, if these reporters would just update these with what the coroner report said, that'd be great. What if we just asked them nicely? Chrisrus (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. It would be nice if we had access to a WP:RS that reported the results of the investigation.Onefireuser (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Onefireuser

New format for 2014?
Why not take this opportunity to update the list format? Because we're starting a new list, we can do it differently, and there has been much consensus, scroll up that the columns need re-arranging and so on.

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

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


 * Great idea. Thanks, Chrisrus. How about a column for spay/neuter status since that has been identified as an important factor?Onefireuser (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Onefireuser
 * Done. What other columns should we add, if any, and what about the order? We should finalize this quickly because each new item makes column work more difficult. Chrisrus (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Niko, 130lb. pitbull?
Today I deleted these words " - thus unable to be classified as a true pit bull" which followed the statement that Niko, the dog that killed Mia Derouen in March of this year, 2014. Is this true? To find out, I Googled around and found that the breed standards and descriptions specify a much lighter animal. Yet, on the other hand, I was also able to find individual pit bulls that weighed much more than one hundred pounds. I found some breeders who have been breeding pit bulls for size and have very large pit bulls, including 120 pound animals, which of course could be fattened to reach 130, which is what Niko weighed. Also, we know that poodles and schnauzers and others can vary between toy size to giant size and still be poodles or schnauzers. The source we are using shows no doubt that Niko was a pit bull, but if that's just not possible we should talk about what to do. But I'm not so sure that it's not possible to be 130 pounds and a pit bull at the same time. Chrisrus (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that pit bulls are a class of dog breeds as opposed to one single breed, there isn't defined standards for what it is. 130 lbs is a big for a pit, but not unheard of. Most people consider an AmStaff AKC specifications for "pit bull", but very few dogs labelled as pitbulls are purebred amstaffs. A pit/mastiff mix can easily get to that size. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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