Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Recent edits.

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

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

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

1. It seems to be 1 attack, and I was following the convention set by the 1967 Goodman Brothers incident.
2. I wouldn't say this is definitely an attack, but I also wouldn't call many of the other events on the list a definite "attack." For example, Darla Anne Harper and Salvador Cotto. We've had a difficult time coming to a consensus on how to define an "attack" on this page in the past. So for now, I'll continue to interpret it broadly. If we want to define attack as always involving biting and always involving intent to harm, we should start a new section and we will need to revisit most of the entries on this page to make sure they meed that definition.
3. See above.
4. The source says they cut open the dog's stomach to see if it contained human remains. That suggests that they did suspect that the dog was invovled in the attack, but they determined that he did not actually ingest any of the victim. Onefireuser (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Ok, so I consolidated the Goodman Brothers attack now.
2. Dogs do attack their toys. Attacking things can be a fun game for dogs, as opposed to an aggressive attack. But a toddler is not a toy. A play attack is still an attack if the child is being used as a chew toy or "tug" toy. But the girl and dog were playing with the scarf and it somehow got around her neck and he ran away, ran AWAY from her, dragging her accidently and strangled her. It wasn't even a play attack, it wasn't an attack at all. If they'd been running and she tripped on it and died that isn't an attack. It's not even a play attack. We only collect attacks here.
3. This dog was not attacking her even in a playful way that got out of hand. It was chasing a car and ran through her legs and she tripped and hit her head and died from tripping and falling. If I trip on Casey in the middle of the night, because he sleeps on the top of the stairs sometimes, and I'm not careful, I might trip on him and tumble down the stairs and break my neck and die, is that a fatal dog attack. There's no reason to think that dog even noticed her. Now, if I'm two years old and a great dane thinks I'm his chew toy and bites me and shakes me like a terrier shakes a rat or rag, and I die of that, well, that's a fatal dog attack, because it was only a play attack, but an attack nevertheless because the dog bit me and shook me.
4. The way it reads, they felt they cleared the setter from any suspicion. The source and our wording in the description imply that at first they thought maybe the setter was involved but decided it wasn't. There's no sign anyone believed that the setter was involved after they checked the stomach. It seems everyone, even the author of our description of the attack on this list, was trying to say that the setter was involved. So if it's now agreed the setter wasn't involved, then it shouldn't be on the list at all. Chrisrus (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you; the Dorothy Whipka case does not sound like an "attack." It should be removed. This is supposed to be a list of "fatal dog attacks." This whole discussion makes me think that we need to come up with a clear definition of "attack" and put it out there at the front of the page. I will start a new section below so we can discuss this. Onefireuser (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether to include the Rita Pepe attack on this list.

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

Sources on the Rita Pepe dog attack

• http://wtnh.com/2014/04/14/93-yr-old-woman-mauled-pit-bull-branford/
• http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20140603/son-says-trauma-of-april-pit-bull-attack-in-branford-played-role-in-death-of-elderly-woman

Discussion

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

Oppose - the first link does not mention her death and the second states she died a month and a half later in her own home from kidney failure. I don't think the sentence "that doctors told him the trauma and extended inactivity as a result of the attack accelerated her condition" makes the attack itself a fatality, especially if she had a preexisting condition. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The doctor said she died of trauma and extended inactivity as a result of the attack. It only says "probably" kidneys. The doctor said she died as a result of trauma and extended inactivity as a result of the attack. This means that the attack caused trauma and three weeks in the hospital, which caused her death. Please respond. This is death by complications resulting from the dog attack. Chrisrus (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the doctor said the trauma and extended inactivity "accelerated her condition", referring to her kidneys. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Support and Comment - I am not all that familiar with this article page. I only just stumbled upon it by chance. In any event, why is the inclusion/exclusion of the Rita Pepe case controversial? You can just include it on the list and cite all of the relevant facts in the "Circumstances" column of her entry in the chart. It's all semantics as to whether her death "was" or "was not" caused by a dog. Certainly, there is at least some connection – regardless of how big or how small – between the dog attack and the death. So, just list the facts and readers can come to whatever conclusions they like. It's not as if including her death on a "list of fatal dog attacks in the USA" would be totally uncalled for, unreasonable, and unwarranted. Even if it's a "gray area" and a "close call", that's exactly what the "Circumstances" notations are for. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

@USER:Joseph A. Spadaro The reason she had not been included is because wikipedia is an encyclopedia and according to WP:RS "is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." Since, as the title says, this is a page about "fatal dog attacks," we should only include incidents for which we have WP:RS indicating that they were indeed fatal dog attacks. I've been trying to find a WP:RS that confirms that for the Rita Pepe case, but have not been able to. So far, all I have found is statements from her son saying that she died of kidney failure (extremely common in 90+ year olds) and that her condition was accelerated by the inactivity secondary to her attack. Again, according to WP:RS this "is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." Please help us find a WP:RS for this incident. Onefireuser (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

According to this one, the doctor said that, even though the immediate cause of death was "probably" kidneys, she died due to trauma from the dog attack and its treatment. I.e.: complications from dog attack. Chrisrus (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

So, is that source considered "good enough"? I would think so. But, as I mentioned, I am not a regular reader or editor on this particular page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You may be mixing up what is said by the doctor and what is said by the woman's son. No doctor appears to have been interviewed for this article. Also, nowhere does it say that the dog bite was a contributing cause of death. It says she probably died of kidney failure (something that has nothing to do with dog bites) and that the trauma accelerated her condition. Here is the actual quote: "Charlie Pepe said his mother... 'probably' died of kidney failure but added that doctors told him the trauma and extended inactivity as a result of the attack accelerated her condition." Onefireuser (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I just don't see what the "big deal" and the "controversy" is. The case is – at a minimum – tangentially related to a fatal dog attack. The "gray area" can be satisfactorily explained in the "Circumstances" notations. This has nothing to do with gossip and rumors. Wikipedia is not to be taken so literally. The title of this article means "fatal dog attacks" and other tangentially related events to that main topic. There is no rule – or reason – that Wikipedia needs to be taken 100% literally, especially when the result is to exclude relevant information. Just as an example, a Wikipedia list of the "verified 100 oldest people in the world" could (and probably does) have a section for "unverified claims" (which is clearly the exact opposite of the article's title, yet nonetheless related and relevant and, thus, information that merits inclusion). Same goes here with the Pepe dog attack case (I believe). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Should we start an "unverified claims" section? Onefireuser (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think there needs to be a new section called "unverified claims". I think the Pepe case should be listed just like any other case, and the "Circumstances" notations can be used to clarify the situation (as to whether or not it was "really" a fatal dog attack, or as to how the dog attack was or was not related to the death, etc.). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Selection Criteria: definition of "attack"

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

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

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

All attacks, whether aggressive or playful, should be included. That definition can't work because it speaks of "intent". While obviously dogs can attack, it's far from clear that they have "intent". They are just animals and it's far from clear that they can envision a future or have purposes in the way that "intend" implies. They do have emotional states, obviously, and something that we might call "agressive" or "playful". What matters is not their mental state but the simple fact of the attack. Chrisrus (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Yet, the question remains, how do we define attack? Does it need to involve a bite? A scratch? What if the dog is reported by all sources to have been playfully nipping the child and bit too hard by accident because it did not have adequate training with bite control? What if the dog was being attacked by a human and bit in self-defense? What if someone is feeding a dog and gets a small puncture wound on the hand and subsequently dies of infection? These are not hypothetical examples; they have all occurred and have been documented in our research. Perhaps this is why the scholarly sources tend to refer not to attacks but to DBRFs. Although the vast majority of the time it is obvious which fatalities are attacks, there have been enough ambiguous cases that we can't simply continue to use the Potter Stewart approach to defining attack. We need to bring this article in line with WP:LSC and preempt future disagreements about which cases belong on the list. Onefireuser (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We should hesitate to set any strict rules as to what constitutes an "attack". We just should look at the details of the specific case. We can't predict the future nor what we will find in the past. There may be fatal dog attacks that involve neither of those things you mention, a bite or a clawing. One hears of canid attacks that amount to no more than a full-speed tripping or body-checking. So I can't really answer about those things until we see the details, because such things as knocking into another while running also are sometimes obviously not "attacks. As with every other referent on Wikipedia, (except some proper nouns), there is a gray area surrounding the central referent which includes some cases that both are and, at the very same time, are not that thing, depending on how you look at it. Hopefully, we won't have too many such cases, but if and when we do, I suspect that the solution might involve asterisks and caveats to "see text" and so on. And, as usual, discussion and editorial judgement.

Next, with regard such playful "accidents", even if it were as clear as in your example that it was merely a matter of bite control failure during play, yes, it should be included, if the person died as a result of the bite. Dogs don't always have to be in attack mode, mentally, to attack. Sometimes they attack when their brain is in play mode. Cats, for example, seem to pretty much always attack their toys as if they were prey. A play attack in which the dog and person are playing and it just gets way too rough and the person ends up dead, yes, the way I personally see that, it should be included in this list. However, It should be done in such a way so that the reader comes away with a clear understanding of what time of attack it was; that the animal, by all accounts, was not in attack mode but play mode when it play-attacked a human being to death.

Normally, on Wikipedia, when a person attacks an animal, and the animal attacks back, we consider it an animal attack on a person. Like if a person were spear fishing and hit a hammerhead and it turned around with the spear in it and killed the guy, we normally but that on the list. This happens a lot at Coyote attacks on humans; a coyote will attack someone's dog, and the human, defending the dog, attacks the coyote, and then the coyote bites the person, that goes on the list. It's just a series of attacks and counter-attacks. So we'd have to explain why we shouldn't do the same here if it ever happens that a person attacks a dog and the dog kills him in self-defence.

If a person were feeding a dog and the dog bites him and the bite kills him, that's an attack. If you're playing with a hand-puppet and the dog thinks elmo is real and attacks it and bites your hand through the puppet and you die, that's a fatal dog attack, too. And maybe an important lesson for our readers, who knows, it could be a very good thing for an individual reader to learn that such a thing can happen. Maybe they'd be more careful about that and someone might not get hurt or worse.

If a dog attacks a person and leaves a very small wound and the person shrugs off the would and doesn't get proper treatment and dies of a disease contracted by the dog bite, like Ada Clare, then we include it on the list. And as I recall, there was not too long ago a coonhound that, just out of nowhere, who knows why, bit its master just one short bite and release. He wasn't badly hurt so he didn't go to the doctor until he noticed it was more than just a little infected, but by then it was already too late. He'd gotten blood poisoning or septicemia or some such and died. A story well worth remembering for our readers! Just goes to show you, even a small animal bite can kill you if you don't get treated promptly. Wasn't a professor in Oxford who died that way after being attacked by a cat? Go to the doctor and get it treated promptly and either determine the animal wasn't rabid or start precautionary treatments. Rabies is maybe the worst way you can die.

So how do you suggest we bring the article in line with WP:LSC to have selection criteria that are "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources"? One way would be to change the title of the article to "Dog Bite Related Fatalities in the US." Onefireuser (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That may have been the best editorial judgement for those editors in the context of that publication at that time, but from that fact it does not necessarily follow that we must do the same thing here given this quite different context. Wikipedia normally names such articles "() attack": Shark attack, Dingo attack, Tiger attack, and so on. Deviating from such precedent would change the usual nature and scope of such articles and could have widespread ramifications. It should therefore not be done without a good explanation of why an exception should be made in this case, or perhaps whether the rest of such articles shouldn't also follow suit, given the improved Wikipedia:PRECISION grounds being put forward as an override to WP:COMMONNAME that as apparently suggested by you above.

Taken as so argued, I'd reply with an appeal to reader welfare. On this page, we discuss article improvement, but improvement in the interest of who? The reader, of course. So, if it's true that people do die from not getting small bites treated or catching disease from dog bites, couldn't that conceivably be important information for the readers? I would appreciate being told that if it were true. This is why I have started a new sub-section, below, and the point I make there about Ada Clare. My point here is to ask how the reader will benefit from moving this to Dog bite related fatalities in the United States and the resulting effect on the nature of this article by narrowing the scope so as to restrict this article to only exsanguination and such, which might predictably skew the data towards those fatalities inflicted by animals much larger and more powerful than the one that killed Ida Claire. Let the editors of that article choose perhaps quite rightly to limit their scope as may be best in that context, and let us do the same for this one.

This is very much like the CDC's decision to exclude prisoners killed by police dogs and such from their data. There is no reason we should follow suit! A dog bite fatality in the USA is a dog bite fatality in the USA - period. So if we can cite a death by police dog attack, we should include it; the fact that the government chooses to ignore deaths by government dogs in government studies doesn't mean we should or have to as well. Chrisrus (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood me. By changing the title from Attacks to DBRFs, I would not expect to narrow the article but to broaden it, and simultaneously bring it in line with WP:LSC. Currently, if we are calling it "attacks", we should only be including attacks. But many people die of bites that are not attacks. We do not have good reliable sources in all cases to say which bites are really attacks and which are simply bites that for unfortunate reasons proved fatal. However, I am not saying that we need to change the title. All I am saying is that we need to bring the article in line with WP:LSC and one way to do that would be to change the title. I am sure there are other ways to do it as well. We need to define our selection criteria. They cannot be so subjective. Onefireuser (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Did Rabid Dogs Kill Many Americans??

If I may digress, speaking of Ada Clare, we only know about her rabid dog bite death because she was a so famous. Surely, she couldn't have been the only one. There must be some record somewhere of how many people have died from rabies as a result of dog bite in this country. I know it doesn't happen anymore, because pretty much all American dogs' have rabies vaccine tags, so they all jingle when they move. So there probably hasn't been a rabies death caused by a dog bite in the USA in a very long time. But there was a time when that wasn't so! Or so I thought, but once I tried to Google scholar up some sources about how many Americans died the same way Ada Clare did, but after a while I gave up because I couldn't find anything. I invite any reader to try your luck and research skills, because such events are definitely fatal dog attacks in the USA and should be included in this article. Chrisrus (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a topic I am quite familiar with through my work. As recently as the beginning of the 20th century, this country was seeing over 100 human rabies deaths per year. More than 90% of these were from dog bites. The number of deaths dropped rapidly during the 20th century and we haven't had a known human case from dog bite in at least a couple decades. However, as late as 1956, there were still tons of human deaths. For example, in that year, Texas alone had 4 human deaths from rabid dog bites. During 1980-1996, there were 2 people who died of rabies strains carried by US domestic dogs, but neither of them had a known bite from a rabid dog. During 1960-1979 there were 7 human fatalities from rabid dog exposures received in the US. These included some with known small bites and other with only saliva exposure. Some of the saliva exposure cases were clearly non-attacks: for example being licked by a friendly puppy. However, one patient had "a nonbite exposure to an aggressive stray dog." The incidence of rabies in domestic dogs in the US dropped dramatically during the 1950s, with over 8,000 cases in 1946 and only 412 in 1965. During 1946-1965 there were 236 confirmed human rabies deaths in the US, mostly occuring during the 1940s. Dogs in the United States were responsible for 119 of these deaths. Prior to the 1940s, there were dozens of human deaths due to rabid dogs per year. Some of these were reported in the news media, but there is no reason to think that collecting news reports would give an accurate picture of the true epidemiology of human deaths from rabid dogs. Some examples of the news reports are: 193219341906-19111923191918911943

There are obviously dozens more reports like this, but I do not see the value in including them in this page. All the scholarly works (in other words, all the WP:RS) on DBRFs have excluded deaths due to infection and it would be wise for us to do the same. Deaths due to infection are very different from deaths due to exsanguination or direct nervous system trauma. Onefireuser (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this, it's very interesting and would make a fine contribution to the article. Please reconsider your position and go ahead and add this information about Fatal Dog Attacks in the USA of the Ada Claire type. Why should they be excluded? Yes, they are different from other fatal dog attacks in the USA, but they are still fatal dog attacks in the USA. Chrisrus (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional Studies

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

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

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

Alemeaner Dial

Please add this attack: http://www.fayobserver.com/news/crime_courts/year-old-rowland-woman-attacked-by-pit-bulls-dies/article_affb497a-8732-5154-a4aa-1bfbefc7b693.html Chrisrus (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC):

Good find! --Onefireuser (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion Criteria

According to WP:LSC, we need to define precise criteria for inclusion in a list such as this. In our research for this list, we are collecting primary news reports of dog incidents and we need to decide how to classify them. Specifically, we need to decide what counts as an "attack" and what counts as "fatal." Most of the time, these terms are unambiguous. However, we have numerous ambiguous cases. For example, there are cases where a friendly dog accidentally knocks a person over and the person dies of head trauma. That is clearly "fatal" but should we include it as an "attack"? On the other hand, there are incidents where a dog bites a nonagenarian numerous times all over the body; the nonagenarian survives but then dies months later of age-related illnesses that predated the dog bites. That case is clearly an "attack" but was it "fatal"? --Onefireuser (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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: Wikipedia:NORN#Dog breed identification. 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#Dog Breed Identification. -- 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[1]) cites the authorities and says "golden retriever-Labrador mix"; the other (Associated Press, as aggregated by The Huffington Post[2]) also cites authorities and says "retriever mix." It seems to me the sources do not contradict each other, but rather differ only in specificity, with the local paper (The Post and Courier) being more specific than the wire service (AP). That doesn't seem like a reason to change the article. For example, if one WP:RS source says, "killed by a dog" without citing the breed and another says, "killed by a Rottweiler" then I would go with the more specific of the two. Astro$01 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

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:

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

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

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

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

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

   This is irrelevant because it stems from WP:Original research, as determined by consensus (see above). Given the fact that you keep using this argument to justify changing the article, despite the contrary consensus on the WP and RS noticeboards, I have to conclude that your efforts here are merely an attempt to foist your own point of view regarding the dog's breed on this article, contrary to the WP:NPOV policy. Please stop. Astro$01 (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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