Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

According to the article pit bull, it is not a dog breed, it's a dog type. Therefore, it's not necessary to say "pit bull-type". We should just say "pit bull", or give the specific breed if there is one. Chrisrus (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a good suggestion. Looking at the page, it seems like we already do this in most of the article. It usually says just pit bull, not "pit bull type" so it wouldn't take too much work to change them all to just "pit bull."Onefireuser (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Based on the ongoing discussions about the inclusion of some incidents, the identification of breed for some incidents, and the overall quality of the sources used to write this page, I've added a Factual Accuracy tag to the page. The most pressing issues we need to address:

• Does this page accurately reflect the sources?

I've been checking the sources for the older incidents and for many of them, what was written about breed or other circumstances is not what was written in the sources.

• How do we present factually accurate information about the breed involved?

Although news organization are generally considered reliable sources, "reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact."(WP:IRS#News_organizations) The breed attributed to the dog is often inconsistent from article to article and even within article. When pictures of the dog are published, WP editors repeatedly question the breed designation made by the news media. Furthermore, breed designation is particularly difficult to make based on physical appearance. Even (perhaps especially) for dog experts, it is difficult to determine breed based on looks alone. In our sources, the breed is determined by animal control, law enforcement, reporters, or sometimes just members of the general public. Should we give all of these sources of information equal weight? Based on what we know about determining breed from looks, even when Animal Control officials are reporting a breed designation, that information is inherently subjective and difficult to verify.

These are the most pressing, but other issues related to the factual accuracy of the article can be found in recent activity on the Talk page.Onefireuser (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

What's hard is figuring out mixed breed dogs by looking at them. For purebred dogs and general dog types, it can be hard at times, but I think you're way overstating how hard. It doesn't take long for ordinary people to learn to recognize a basset hound, for example, or to tell that a dog is some kind of sighthound. Animal control people probably don't know all the breeds in the world, but they can tell the common and obvious breeds and types. Chrisrus (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's not too difficult to identify a purebred dog. However, most of the dogs on this page are mixed breed dogs and like you said that's what's difficult to identify. Even for animal control, it is close to impossible to accurately identify mixed-breed dogs. Notice how many black and white dogs are identified as "border collie mixes."

In addition, a lot of the breed identifications in our sources are not from animal control, but are instead from a neighbor or a sheriff's deputy, people with no expertise to be able to identify dog breeds, let alone mixed breeds.

Your assertion that it's not too difficult to identify a dog based on type is incorrect. Look at the article dog type: the first sentence is "Dog types are broad categories of dogs based on function, with dogs identified primarily by specific function or style of work rather than by lineage or appearance." So Akita, APBT, and Shar Pei are all the same type of dog: Fighting-type. But they look nothing alike. On the other hand, many Akitas and Alaskan Malamutes look very similar even though one is a sled dog and the other is a fighting dog.Onefireuser (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

• A recent study in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association by Robert Simpson et al. says that physical appearance is not a good indicator of breed, and that even veterinarians cannot accurately identify breed in mixed-breed dogs. I've been looking for some research that shows that experts can reliably identify mixed breed dogs, but so far I've only been able to find research saying that experts can't reliably make those identifications. If anyone is able to find any studies that show that visual identification of breed can be reliable, please let us know. Onefireuser (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

I was working on the summary of the CDC report tonight and I got what I think is a really good idea:

Let's move it to simply "Fatal Dog Attacks in the United States" and drop the "List of" part. With an improving "Part One" of the article, in which we summarize the scholarly articles available on the subject, this article isn't just a list of such events anymore.

I'm hoping for some agreement before going ahead with this. Chrisrus (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. If we're changing the title, it would be a good opportunity to find a broader term than "attack" since we're including incidents that we're officially determined not to be attacks and other incidents where we don't know if they were attacks or not. The CDC's "DBRF" term comes to mind, but I'm sure there are other good options as well.Onefireuser (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

The linked article states that Diane Jansen died from a stroke and heart disease. One week earlier she had suffered a small (1 inch, according to the article) bite on her leg. Considering that 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year (www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/dog-bites/biteprevention.html) and 800,000 people die in the U.S. each year from cardiovascular disease and strokes (http://www.cdc.gov/stroke/faqs.htm), then many people must be bitten by a dog during the weeks or days before their fatal cardiovascular accidents.

It seems that the average reader would therefore not consider this a "fatal dog attack" and it should not be included in this article. Does anyone know if there are lots of other questionable entries on this list?Onefireuser (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

The source[1] says

Diane Jansen, 59, died from a stroke and heart disease but the dog bite injury was listed as a contributing factor, said a spokeswoman for the county Medical Examiner’s Office.

While the article does indeed state

Jansen was bitten on her right leg and suffered a 1-inch wound between her knee and ankle

you omitted the next sentence

While being treated by paramedics her speech began to slur and she became unresponsive.

If the medical examiner had not listed dogbite as a contributing factor then Ms. Jansen would not be on the list. Astro$01 (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Close call, but the right decision. If it were clear that it was not the major or main cause of death, I might disagree, but they make it sound like it was as co-equal a cause of death as any of the other causes.Chrisrus (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It does not list the bite as "co-equal a cause of death." It says she "died from a stroke and heart disease but the dog bite injury was listed as a contributing factor." If it had been "co-equal a cause of death," then it would need to be listed as the cause of death, not only as a contributing factor. This is simply how medical examiner reports work. The contributing factors are, by definition, not the cause of death.Onefireuser (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Yes, it does say that "her speech began to slur and she became unresponsive" but that does not address the concern that the reasonable person would not consider this a "fatal attack." It was an attack, but it was non-fatal according to the news article used as the reference. The article states this clearly:

Jansen’s death was from a medical condition unrelated to the dog bite.

and

police will look at it to see if the bite can be directly linked to Jansen’s death, but for now no legal action is anticipated

Given these quotes, it seems that the article is clearly stating that this was not a "fatal attack." Why would we interpret this as a "fatal attack," when the article states that her death was "from a medical condition unrelated to the dog bite"?Onefireuser (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

For now, it looks like I'm outvoted by Astro$01 and Chrisrus. I propose that we leave the controversial incidents up on the page until more people weigh in. In the meantime, we should add a new section to the article that explains that not all of these incidents were determined to be "fatal attacks" by the news media. Some (e.g. Diane Jansen, John Reynolds Sr, Ethel Horton, Maryann Hanula) were determined by medical authorities to be due to other causes or were indeterminate. Since Wikipedia is an attempt to provide unbiased information, we owe it to the readers to let them know that these determinations were not made by news reporters or coroners, but were made by Wikipedia editors. Onefireuser (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Astro$01 has deleted the edit that addressed this issue. Since Astro$01 rejected the suggestion to remove questionable incidents from the list, and also deleted the clarification section that was added to the article, how would other editors suggest we address the issue of NPOV in this article?Onefireuser (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

I don't know if I agree about all three of these "iffy" cases where it's not obvious the attack really caused the death of the person, but you may be right about some of them. In my experience, for example, we had some iffy cases on Coyote attack whether or not some of the cases the authorities were calling "attacks" were really attacks as our readers would likely understand the word (see Talk:Coyote_attacks_on_humans#Which_of_the_following_.22Iffy_Cases.22_qualify_as_true_.22coyote_attacks.22.3F). The point is, by including "iffy" cases, we open ourselves up to skepticism from the readers. In that case, we worried that they might look at a case where all we had was a term like "coyote acted aggressively toward a woman" and say "aw, this list is a load of baloney" and ignore the rest. Now, the local police or whatever probably had good reason to list that as an attack, but that our reasons and theirs are different. By limiting the list to only unquestionable cases, the effect on the reader is more powerful - coyote attacks are a real phenomenon and no joke. So Astro, please reconsider some of these cases Onefireuser has brought up - some do look a bit iffy. When there's doubt that the attack caused the death, it might be best to omit them for the integrity of the article. Chrisrus (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Upon investigation, http://web.utsandiego.com/news/2012/mar/09/tp-bitten-postal-worker-dies-pit-bull-a-factor/?ap says:

"Diane Jansen, 59, died from a stroke and heart disease, but the dog bite injury was listed as a contributing factor, said a spokeswoman for the county Medical Examiner’s Office.

The reason we are listing this item is because the county Medical Examiner's Office listed dog bite injury as a contributing factor. The article explains that when the paramedics were treating her, her speech started to slur, and she became unresponsive. It says the police spokesman said that they'd heard differently, but they hadn't yet seen the county Medical Examiner's Office report. But the reporters is telling us that the county Medical Examiner's Office listed dog bite injury as a contributing factor in her death. So we don't have to wait to see the report the police had not yet seen because the reporter has already told us that the county Medical Examiner's Office listed dog bite injury as a contributing factor in her death. Chrisrus (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)  Done

Is there any reason why this case is not included on the page?

Since we are including Diane Jansen, Ethel Horton, and Mable Harrison McCallister, why wouldn't we include Kenneth Block. The source says that Kenneth Bock was bitten by the dog and died ten days later as a result of the bite.Onefireuser (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser
In the same vein, should Dolly Newell be included on this page? Onefireuser (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Why not? Chrisrus (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A few more similar cases: Pit bull mix Another dog Onefireuser (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

The first one says that initial reports concluded that "Phalen died of an infection caused by the bite." complicated by the fact that he had no spleen, "which may have caused the infection to intensify", but initial kinda implies that there were more definative reports being awaited. I would look for a follow-up report. Chrisrus (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In the second one, I read it and understood that she definately died of some bacteria she had picked up from her dog, but that it wasn't clear if was an attack or she had been infected some other way, like the dog licking her face. It could be because she had a rare condition that made it hard for her body to fight bacteria normally. This is not a list of people killed by dogs, but a list fatal dog attacks or Dog bit related fatalities". Chrisrus (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is the dog that killed Alexander Adams being described as a "terrier mix"? Chrisrus (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed, updated details, and updated references.Onefireuser (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Thanks! DoneChrisrus (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

It would be easy to make improvements to the list if we knew how to cut-and-paste back-and-forth between this list and a word processor. Is that possible?

How can we learn to add, delete, or re-order columns easily?

Problems include some which stem from the fact that this used to be a list of people, but now it's a list of events, so it has to be re-ordered. Chrisrus (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Because the tables use Wikipedia's markup, copying the information into a word document might not be the best approach because you won't be able to see how the tables are changing. Changing the columns and re-ordering them is a matter of basic programming and needing a familiarity with the markup. I think you have two options. One, you could figure out the changes you want and then ask someone who does know the markup language to make them, or you can learn the markup if you're a bit technically minded. You can experiment on a test page like your sandbox and they copy it over to the main space when you're ready. Mkdw^talk 19:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello User Mkdw and thank you for you help. However, I am afraid I am not technically minded enough to go that route as I've never programmed anything. Unless some other reader of these words thinks they would like to try, I suppose we'll have to decide on what we want done and go to the proper forum to request that it be done by others. What forum would you suggest, the village pump? Chrisrus (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chrisrus! I came over to help with your question (I see Mkdw has given you good advice), and while I was studying the article I noticed that the hatnote was incorrectly positioned per wp:HN, Wikipedia's editing guideline for hatnotes. This happens frequently when a maintenance tag is placed at the TOP of an article. Why did you revert my edit? – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 19:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in improving this article. To answer your question, as I wrote in the edit summary, this is not just a list anymore. Part two is a list, but part one is a review of scholarly articles about this topic. If you put that hatnote there, it tells the reader that this article is a list but it is now and in the future should be even more so an article in part one about what such papers tell us about fatal dog attacks in the US. Therefore, it makes no sense to say "this list is..." in front of the part which is not a list. That hatnote belongs only on the top of lists, that's all. Chrisrus (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Whereas I could see possibly how someone might mistake an American bulldog for a pit bull, the distinctive morphology of the boxer is commonly recognized by the general public and therefore assumable by most people.

Nor should American Bulldogs be called "pit bulls". A pitbull is a mix of terrier and bulldog, which are two different bloodlines. You can't be both a pure bulldog and (bulldog + terrier) at the same time. It strains the rational limits of the word "pitbull" to treat such an identification as anything but mistaken. We should endevour to separate out any bulldogs that have been mistaken for pit bulls and vice versa. Bulldogs seen with cephalic indexes clearly way beyond the Scot-type should not be depicted as possibly purebred bulldogs. Furthermore, we should not characterize the list as one that permits bulldogs to be called "pit bulls". Chrisrus (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it slightly strains belief that someone would confuse a pit bull and a boxer. However, that is what the reference ("What Is -- And Isn't -- A Pit Bull?") says. When I step back and think about it, it doesn't seem quite as far fetched as it does at first. In some of the incidents the only person making a call on breed is a layperson witness. In my own anecdotal experience (not a WP:RS) in bad neighborhoods around the US, there is a large segment of the population that is terrified of dogs, especially pit bulls and calls any scary dog with short hair a "pit bull." Interestingly, this seems to be the same population within which pit bull-type dogs are the most common dog kept. I've even heard people say "it was a Rottweiller or a Pit Bull." (here's one non-US example that I found with a quick Google search)

In addition to the media reference mentioned above, the ASPCA also lists Boxer as one of the breeds commonly called "pit bull." Granted, some editors of this page may not consider the ASPCA a WP:RS.

Especially when you start to consider mixed-breed dogs, it seems even less far-fetched. If you imagine a boxer crossed with pretty much any other mutt or average looking dog, it doesn't seem like a stretch to get something that looks like a "pit bull" or "pit bull mix." For example, see the University of Florida study. Dogs 08, 17, 58, and 89 are all supposedly Boxer mixes that the study participants thought looked like "pit bull mixes" (ie they thought they contained "American Staffordshire Terrier"). Whether or not you believe this study or the validity of DNA testing for dog breeds, it shows that it could be possible to mix up boxer mixes and pit bull mixes. Also, in many legal and colloquial definitions, the term "pit bull" is inclusive of the term "pit bull mix." So when a witness says "pit bull," they might not have a purebred dog in mind.

All that said, I agree with Chrisrus that we should try to separate out Bulldogs and American Pit Bull Terriers/AmStaffs when we can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefireuser (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's also too bad that the article "Pit Bull" doesn't address the various ways the term is used and misused. Hopefully someone will work on that, but I wouldn't touch that article with a ten-foot catch pole.Onefireuser (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

One last point: I agree that it's unfortunate that we need to characterize the list as one that allows bulldogs to be called "pit bulls" or bulldog-mixes as "pit bull mixes," but if we're simply passing along the information from the media sources, then that's what we're allowing. Remember Violet Serenity Haaker? Headlines called the dog a "pit bull" even though the dog involved was part of an American Bulldog breeding operation. If we didn't have the evidence that the dog was breeding stock, our Wikipedia article would say "Pit Bull or American Bulldog" or might just say "Pit Bull" in the Category of Dog column.

Do you have a suggestion for a better solution than our current one of reporting what the media says and offering the disclaimer that the term "pit bull" is used loosely in US society?Onefireuser (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

If you Google "Kim Ode", the author of the claim, in the Star Tribune, that it's legit to say a boxer or a bulldog actually is a pit bull, you will agree that she seems to be a terrific gal and a good reporter. I don't know that any of that means that this article should say the same thing. Note the difference between what I'm saying and the question of whether a person might mistake a boxer or a bulldog for a pit bull. I am clearly admitting that could possibly happen from time to time. I'm saying that just because Ms Ode says a boxer is a kind of pit bull, I don't think we can rightly claim the same thing in this article. The reason I'm planning to remove or alter that section is because her and her editors' authority seem not sufficient to overturn the long-standing widespread understanding that boxers and bulldogs are not pit bulls, although they are clearly possibly mistaken for pit bulls.

Furthermore, only in the case of some bulldog breeds is pit bull misidentification in the context of a news article a particularly reasonable possibility. We can reasonably assume many of those that these reporters interview would have called a dog a boxer if it was a purebred one. The ability to quickly, easily, and correctly identify a purebred boxer as such is widespread and common. It's possible some of these we call pit bulls might have actually been boxers, but not probable enough to merit mention in the article. Consider the effect on the reader: they may think many dogs we call "pit bulls" might actually be boxers. That section should just say that some mixed dogs and some purebred molossers might be called pit bulls here. We should omit boxers. We should not seem to claim that purebred bulldogs and boxers actually are pit bulls, because of the weight of those that claim the opposite. Chrisrus (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we're getting somewhere here. I agree with you that a boxer should not be called a pit bull; here, I am using the strict definition of pit bull: APBT or AmStaff. I also agree that many people can tell the difference. However, there is one major point on which we disagree: I think most boxer mixes will get called "pit bull mixes" or simply "pit bulls" (because as I mentioned above, that term includes mixes). Of course, that doesn't mean that most of the "pit bulls" in this article are actually boxer mixes. They are probably not, but there is no way for us to know which ones are which. On the flip side, this also means that some dogs being called "boxer mixes" or "American Bulldog mixes" are actually "Pit Bull mixes." All of the RSes that I've been able to find support this belief (the Star Tribune piece, the ASPCA, the U of Florida study, etc). If anyone can find a reliable source that shows the opposite, please let us know.Onefireuser (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

There are really unlimited examples of the term "pit bull" being used very loosely. For example here, here, and here's one from the American Boxer Club where they say "It is also a sad but true fact of life that your Boxer may easily be confused by many with the much maligned Pit Bull, often with tragic consequences for the Boxer."Onefireuser (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

I thought I had been careful to clarify that I was talking about purebred boxers. All this you've said about dogs that are part boxer and part something else is beside the point.

We agree that we should not imply that purebred boxers actually are pitbulls, yet the article as it stands says boxers and bulldogs are pitbulls. This is wrong. We can say that certain breeds are commonly mistaken for pitbulls, but not that boxers and bulldogs are pitbulls.  :::::

Agreed. I think the article specifically says "a mix of" and I just clarified it to point out that those usages are technically erroneous. Does that work for you?Onefireuser (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Ok. I still think that "boxer" was a poor choice, as it's such a commonly recognized breed the likelyhood if it's being called a pit bull is relatively small compared to other, less well-known breed such as, just by way of example, a Dogo Argentino. But the main problem with that part has definately been fixed.  Done Chrisrus (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I added an external links section. I wanted to avoid any potentially contentious links, such as Dogsbite.org or the NCRC. So I tried to go with the most respected and neutral organizations. I included a human medical perspective (CDC) and a veterinary medical perspective (AVMA). Do other editors think that these outside links are useful and appropriate for the article?Onefireuser (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Excellent.  Done

When this WP:RS talks about there being a limited number of studies of this topic, so it was hard for them to learn by comparing existing studies, I think they were leading to the point that this was the reason they felt it necessary to undertake the project in the first place; to rectify that wrong; so that there would be, as there is today, a comprehensive CDC research paper on this topic. This means that, now that the CDC paper has been published, that problem isn't as serious as it was before they started, so it's not really true so much anymore. So it shouldn't be presented to the readers in this way, and the rhetorical purpose in this text is unclear. Here, a section introduction is called for. It should read "Scholarly papers on (topic) include..." Chrisrus (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This sentence is not useful.Onefireuser (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

The phrase "killed by" occurs countless times throughout this list. Is it necessary? This is, after all, a list of fatal dog attacks in the United States, so it kind of goes without saying. To remedy this could be easily done by search and replace, although each one should be checked that it's not necessary in context. I cite WP:USEFEWWORDS. Chrisrus (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.Onefireuser (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

The factual accuracy tag requires statements be reliably sourced, but everything seems WP:RS. Much mis-transfer of info from the RSes to the article has been fixed. It seems to me that someone needs to point out factual inaccuracy in the article or remove it. Chrisrus (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

At this point, mostly in agreement. For many reasons discussed previously the use of media sources for this article is not up to usual WP:RS standards (most obviously, and demonstrated repeatedly on this talk page, the sources are not reliable for breed attribution). However, if we want this page to exist, we have no alternative but to use these small-press news sources. So I think as long as we are describing the multiple caveats of these sources, we are safe to remove the tag.Onefireuser (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

 Done – also, an update hatnote was added. Feel free to revert or improve it. If you contributors are gnomes like me, then you don't need this, but I'll say it anyway... You've made great improvements to this article and list! Kudes to both of you! – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 20:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

How did you access the Texas study? I can't see it. Chrisrus (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this study, like most academic studies, was not published in an open-access journal. Just like a book, you either need to purchase it from the publisher or access it through a library or other institution with a subscription to the journal.Onefireuser (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

I see. And you've done this? How much was it? Chrisrus (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Search for the article using Google Scholar. That should show you a link that allows you to see the abstract. In the column on the right, you can then hit the link for "Full Text (pdf)" and it will show you the various different options for accessing the article. Alternatively, if you have access to a public university library, you may be able to view the article for free.Onefireuser (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

You have already done this, is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. I'd offer to share it with you, but I think it would be a copyright violation and not a wise thing for me to advertise doing on Wikipedia. With academic research, you can often contact the authors of the study and they will share a pdf of the article with you.Onefireuser (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

There was no mention of any "pit bull" in that study? Chrisrus (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

There were 6 attacks attributed to Bullterriers. The Bullterrier is a one of the fighting breeds. Like the American Staffordshire Terrier or American Pit Bull Terrier it is one of the Bull and Terrier dogs and therefore is sometimes described as a pit bull-type dog. Onefireuser (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Is the following a direct quote from the study? "…although 16 deaths were attributable to German Shepherd Dogs and only 6 were attributable to pit bulls, there were 74,723 registered German Shepherd Dogs and only 929 registered pit bulls.” I had heard a rumor that this was a direct quote from the study. Chrisrus (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a direct quote, but it is from a 2011 study by Bini et al. ("Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs") in which they mis-cite the 1982 study. When Bini et al. say "pit bull" they define it as American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The 1982 study specifically referred to Bullterriers.Onefireuser (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

It's an extraordinary and important enough of a fact for us to mention that the texas study did not find the word "pit bull" used to describe even one such attack in the US during the entire period; just a few Bull Terriers. Chrisrus (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that all of the dogs they were calling "Bullterrier" were actual English Bull Terriers with the egg head. It wasn't a common breed then or today. Plus, pedigree dogs are a small minority of the dogs involved in fatal attacks. I would expect that some (maybe even all) of those dogs would today be called "pit bulls" or "pit bull mixes." Onefireuser (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

I aslo suspect that the UT study may have been referring to something other than a Bull Terrier when they used the term. They talk differently down in Texas, and they might have reasoned that if a pit bull is part bulldog and part terrier, then "bull terrier" was a good word for them. But we know that the common ancestor of the bull terrier and the pit bull is fairly distant. Further research is due. How can we find out if the authors really meant this specific breed, and if not, what? Please scan your copy for clues. Chrisrus (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, do you know what you get if you cross an English Bull Terrier with a mutt?Onefireuser (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

An English Bull Terrier-mix? Chrisrus (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was that the media sources upon which the Texas study were based were probably calling dogs "bull terriers" that we would today call "pit bulls." The study authors, however, seem to pretty clearly have had the English Bull Terrier in mind when they tallied up the statistics. I'm basing this on the fact that they even reported the number of AKC registered Bullterriers in 1976. If they had meant APBT or AmStaffs, then they probably would have used the AKC registry for American Staffordshire Terriers, because I think it was an official breed by then. Unfortunately, since it seems like the ambiguity comes from the original media sources, I don't think there's any way for us to figure out what those dogs actually looked like.Onefireuser (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Your update to the Texas study looks good. I updated a couple of the specific numbers from the references. Also, I added a reference to help people make sense of the lack of "pit bulls" in the study and to explain that Bull terriers are one of the 5 breeds most commonly called pit bulls (although APBTs and AmStaffs are the only two/one breed[s] in the strictest sense of the term). Unfortunately, the WP article Pit bull is useless. So I had to link to the ASPCA, which some people may not consider a WP:RS.Onefireuser (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Just added two more references to clarify the relationship between Bull terriers and "pit bulls." One of these references is by an author of the CDC study (Lockwood). Onefireuser (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

There have been a couple of additions to the page that use dogbitelaw.com as a reference. Does this site meet standards for a WP:RS? The site looks like it is essentially the face of the Law Offices of Kenneth M. Phillips, an attorney specializing in winning compensation for victims of dog bites. While Mr. Phillips looks like he is engaged in a noble pursuit and is good at it, I wonder if his epidemiological statistics can be considered reliable. It may be better if we can source this type of information from an organization like the CDC, AVMA, etc. Onefireuser (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Like me, you may have found that certain lawyers are trying to attract business by providing webpages with useful, interesting, and seemingly reliable information on this topic. We should applaud their efforts and try to find ways to use these sites to improve this article, such as by directing further research to something we can cite. But can we cite them directly in the article as WP:RS? I don't think so, because they have no professional internal review process; it's just a business putting up a website; and such websites can and do contain all kinds of dubious claims. Also, if we allow one such site to use the Links section, might that put on on slippery slope? Chrisrus (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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[2]) cites the authorities and says "golden retriever-Labrador mix"; the other (Associated Press, as aggregated by The Huffington Post[3]) 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[4] says so, even though a different source says she was killed by a dog without specifying the breed.[5]. 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)

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.^[1] Her obituary states that she "passed away peacefully."^[2] 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)

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^[3]

American Humane Association^[4]

ASPCA^[5]

Humane Society^[6]

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)

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)

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  Done issue. Earlier when I had tried to address this and alert the reader to the type of references used, my efforts we're blocked by Astr01.Onefireuser (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

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)