Talk:List of fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Standardization of breed names

Please use these guidelines to help keep breed names accurate, consistent, and organized. Currently, the main page contains a variety of different formats (capitalizations, hyphenations, and sometimes spellings) for breed names. For example, the Labrador Retriever is capitalized in a variety of ways including: Labrador Retriever, Labrador retriever, and labrador retriever. While there are a number of different suggested ways to capitalize and hyphenate breed names, the recommendation of this guideline is to follow the format that the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club use which is to capitalize all names in a breed name, for example: Labrador Retriever. In the case of mixed breeds, the format is also to capitalize all breed names but not the word "mix", for example: Labrador Retriever-Husky mix. In the case of pit bulls, since "pit bull" is not a proper breed but a dog type (a category of dog consisting of at least 4 breeds as listed on the pit bull Wikipedia page), the proper way to capitalize pit bull is with both names lowercase: pit bull (unless it is the first word in a sentence, then it would be: Pit bull and "bull" should not be capitalized). If one of the proper pit bull breeds is identified, then all of the names in the breed name would be capitalized (like any other proper breed), for example: American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. If the number of dogs involved in an attack is more than one, for consistency it should be listed as: Breed (2). For example, if two German Shepherd dogs are involved, then it would be listed as German Shepherds (2).

Examples of breed name format, as recommended:

• Labrador Retriever
• Labrador Retriever mix
• Labrador Retriever-Husky mix
• German Shepherd
• German Shepherd mix
• German Shepherd-Husky mix
• Doberman Pinscher
• American Staffordshire Terrier
• American Pit Bull Terrier
• pit bull
• pit bull mix
• mixed breed dog
• pack of dogs

Examples if two dogs of the same or mixed breed are involved in an attack, as recommended:

• German Shepherds (2)
• Doberman Pinschers (2)
• mixed breed dogs (2)
• pack of dogs (2)
• pit bulls (2)
• Doberman Pinschers (2), German Shepherds (2), pit bull mixes (2)

Would it be better to put this in some kind of infobox so the autoarchive bot doesnt keep pulling this? PearlSt82 (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@PearlSt82: Yes, I think so since these are guidelines for the main page, but I don't know how to move them into an infobox. Jacobm co (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

There are several talk namespace template messages - maybe the "notice" one would be appropriate? PearlSt82 (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Standardization of breed names

Please use these guidelines to help keep breed names accurate, consistent, and organized. Currently, the main page contains a variety of different formats (capitalizations, hyphenations, and sometimes spellings) for breed names. For example, the Labrador Retriever is capitalized in a variety of ways including: Labrador Retriever, Labrador retriever, and labrador retriever. While there are a number of different suggested ways to capitalize and hyphenate breed names, the recommendation of this guideline is to follow the format that the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club use which is to capitalize all names in a breed name, for example: Labrador Retriever. In the case of mixed breeds, the format is also to capitalize all breed names but not the word "mix", for example: Labrador Retriever-Husky mix. In the case of pit bulls, since "pit bull" is not a proper breed but a dog type (a category of dog consisting of at least 4 breeds as listed on the pit bull Wikipedia page), the proper way to capitalize pit bull is with both names lowercase: pit bull (unless it is the first word in a sentence, or it appears as the beginning word(s) in a list/column, then it would be: Pit bull and "bull" should not be capitalized). If one of the proper pit bull breeds is identified, then all of the names in the breed name would be capitalized (like any other proper breed), for example: American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. If the number of dogs involved in an attack is more than one, for consistency it should be listed as: Breed (2). For example, if two German Shepherd dogs are involved, then it would be listed as German Shepherds (2).

Examples of breed name format, as recommended:

• Labrador Retriever
• Labrador Retriever mix
• Labrador Retriever-Husky mix
• German Shepherd
• German Shepherd mix
• German Shepherd-Husky mix
• Doberman Pinscher
• American Staffordshire Terrier
• American Pit Bull Terrier
• pit bull
• pit bull mix
• mixed breed dog
• pack of dogs

Examples if two dogs of the same or mixed breed are involved in an attack, as recommended:

• German Shepherds (2)
• Doberman Pinschers (2)
• mixed breed dogs (2)
• pack of dogs (2)
• pit bulls (2)
• Doberman Pinschers (2), German Shepherds (2), pit bull mixes (2)

Would it be better to put this in some kind of infobox so the autoarchive bot doesnt keep pulling this? PearlSt82 (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@PearlSt82: Yes, I think so since these are guidelines for the main page, but I don't know how to move them into an infobox. Jacobm co (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

There are several talk namespace template messages - maybe the "notice" one would be appropriate? PearlSt82 (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a mess

I have just removed far too many bullet points of very basic summaries of sources. This article is not a list, it must obey MOS:PROSE. Listing 50 or however many sources in bullet points is not acceptable. Information must be summarized and organized into readable sections. I see that you are having a discussion about which of these studies are primary and which are secondary. This is how this should work: we should review the sources to determine which are primary and which are secondary, then determine which studies best represent the current consensus of experts in this field, and then we can use those sources to rewrite that whole section to reflect that knowledge. It has to be in prose. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe that this AVMA source is the best secondary literature review on the subject and should be weighted the heaviest. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon: Destruction, much? User:Bondegezou had just removed half of the page an hour ago. You walk in and remove 80% of the remaining page? What is left are 5 primary source studies. PearlSt82, go ahead and remove the rest and we'll have a blank page. Satisfied? Nomopbs (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

What you added to this article does not meet basic content standards. Let us work together to develop material that does. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This is my proposal: first we look through the sources you've added and discuss whether they are a good fit for this article. As I mentioned above, many of them are not about fatal dog bites and thus can be dismissed out of hand. Others are about fatal dog bites, so we can analyze them and compare them to sources already in the article to see if we could use them to supplement or replace them. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Pinging all the recent contributors: User:Red Rock Canyon, User:PearlSt82, User:Nomopbs, User:Bondegezou, User:ImmortalWizard, User:Crypticruin, User:Barkeep49, User:EEng, User:Keith D, User:Trappist the monk, User:Josve05a, User:Jacobm co, User:Onetwothreeip, User:User-duckUser:Spintendo.

I agree with this section heading: This is a mess.

I think the first thing to do is to figure out what the actual subject of this article is supposed to be. "Fatal dog attacks in the US" sounds specific, but there's a lot more room in there than some people would guess. So, your mission, should you choose to accept, is to describe what you would expect to find on a Wikipedia page about this subject. For example: Do you think this page is meant to contain a general summary of fatal dog attacks that happened in the US, or a list of individual incidents (not all List articles have "List of..." at the start of the title)?

Another way to think about this is to think about what section headings you think would belong in this article. For example, some people might expect a list in the Table of Contents that looks like this:

• Risk factors
• Prevention
• Prevalence
• Economic costs

and others might expect a list that looks like this:

• Attacks in the 18th century
• Attacks in the 19th century
• Attacks between 1900 and 1949
• Attacks between 1950 and 1989
• Attacks in the 1990s
• Attacks in the 2000s
• Attacks in the 2010s

– and your list might be completely different. That's okay, too. Those were just the first two ideas I had. But let's talk about what kind of content we're trying to cover, and then we'll sort out what we need to do to build that content. (Please feel free to ping me; it will get my attention faster.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this article should be about the concept/subject of fatal dog attacks in the US (or even expanded to worldwide if the literature justifies it), and not a list of every incident - those can be kept on different pages. A TOC including risk factors, prevention, etc, I think would make sense. To slightly complicate matters, the articles Dog bite, Dog bite prevention, and Dog aggression all cover similar themes. Would it make sense to merge some of these together? PearlSt82 (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, thank you for your input. To answer your question, I concur with PearlSt82. It was because I was thinking along similar lines that I moved the list of recent individual attacks to go with the existing List of... article of slightly less recent individual attacks. It makes no sense to me to have these two List of... articles and then more list here. Let's put the list material in the list articles.

Shorn of the list of individual attacks and with a MEDRS-compliant perspective, this article can focus on a prose description of the issue. I support the idea to make this international in scope. We could then consider merging with some of the articles PearlSt82 has suggested, but that's a later decision, I suggest.

Nomopbs, may I remind you of WP:AGF, WP:OWN and the recent comments addressed to you at WP:ANI? Bondegezou (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

PearlSt82, there are several related pages in Category:Deaths due to dog attacks. It seems a little strange to me that we have articles for specific English-speaking countries but not for the general subject of Fatal dog attacks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking at those pages, Fatal dog attacks in Canada is a similar list article to this one and the spinoffs, and Fatal dog attacks in England and Wales just seems to be an unsourced raw tabulation of numbers per year. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This was my initial respose: First, my editing scope was primarily cite maintenance, remove this article from cite maintenance lists. I often do some obvious CE. You need not include me in making any decisions. Second, lists should be titled "List of …". There is plenty of content for this article after the lists are spun off. I agree with PearlSt82. There are too many similar articles. The ambiguous scope of this article may have contributed to the origin of the other articles. Decide the scope, spin off the lists, and then decide whether or not to merge in other articles. -- User-duck (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Fatal dog attacks in Canada and Fatal dog attacks in England and Wales are both examples of using a poor choice as an example for a new article. They should be renamed/moved quickly to lists. -- User-duck (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Can of worms officially opened. Worms at large. Going to make some popcorn. LOL Nomopbs (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: Rename Fatal dog attacks in the United States to "List of fatal dog attacks in the United States" (we can start with 2000-2019 fatalities) and provide a re-direct from "Fatal dog attacks in the United States". Make a new page called "Fatal dog attacks" and move there the studies and other verbage from Fatal dog attacks in the United States. The new short-name page can be "country-less" and offer links to other "List of" pages (for starters: US, Canada, England & Wales). And we can re-work the studies section there. I don't know how to make pages, rename pages while adding a re-direct, or I'd do it myself. If everyone is agreement, though, and can do these name changes and page creation, I'll be happy to cut/paste everything and put them in the new locations. I don't recommend deleting the current page because then the history will go bye-bye. Hopefully renaming it would keep the histories. Nomopbs (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting will get us in trouble with the admins, because of some technicalities about copyright. Page creation and moving is pretty easy. We should probably wait for at least a few days before doing anything like that, though, in case someone has a better idea tomorrow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I was referring to cut/paste of the words that are already on the wiki pages, not words from other sources. Nomopbs (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It screws up attribution for Wikipedia's internal copyright rules, and then they have to go through the Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves clean-up process, which I hear is practically a nightmare. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: That's above my pay grade, but noted. Nomopbs (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

A country-less 'main page' is a good idea. What do you all think about "fatal dog attacks" vs "fatal dog bites" or something else? I gather that a large fraction of dog-related deaths are due to rabies, which doesn't require an "attack" or a "bite" per se. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Very few of the fatalities are due to rabies, even back in the 1800's. I think part of the purpose of the page is to raise awareness of the problem (dog attacks... that can lead to fatalities), and to help come up with solutions to reducing them. At least that's my take on it. Nomopbs (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I just checked... a grand sum of THREE (3) positive rabies cases. One each in 1887, 1904, and 1924. Of course there may have been more, but that's all we have recorded here. Nomopbs (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This would be for a country-less article on the general subject of dying as a result of encountering a dog. I believe that there are some 20,000 rabies deaths in India every year, and unvaccinated dogs are the biggest source of infection there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: The rabies issue is covered in the Rabies article. And rabies can be contracted without being 'bitten', and from other animals as well. Nomopbs (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like the nature of dog-related fatalities varies quite a bit from country to country, so perhaps it is worth having an article just on the subject of fatal dog attacks in the United States. There appears to be enough research on the subject for at least short or mid-sized article discussing risk factors, prevalence, etc. Also, I support Bondegezou's edit spinning off the list into its own article. This isn't a list article and shouldn't contain huge tables of reports like that. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I would support the idea of a countryless article - presumably geographical differences in the nature of fatalities such as maulings vs disease can be discussed in different subsections. PearlSt82 (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

What have we agreed

Have we reached any consensus on the way forward?

There appears to be some support for the list of individual attacks to be in an article with a title beginning "List of..." and then possibly a separate article providing an overview. Is that right? Bondegezou (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Support this proposal. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Support: I support renaming Fatal dog attacks in the United States to "List of fatal dog attacks in the United States" (maintaining a redirect from old name to new name), and creating a new page "Fatal dog attacks" and putting the study language over there. Nomopbs (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, but we already have List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2000s) and List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (before 2000), so "List of fatal dog attacks in the United States" would normally be expected to be just a stub linking to those articles. Bondegezou (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: You have to consider history and use by others. For the last 10 years, the page has been labelled Fatal dog attacks in the United States and it was primarily a list of fatalities. There are links all over the internet to that specifically named wiki page. The "2000's" page was made a month ago (3-21-2019), and the pre-2000s were split off just two months ago (2-15-2019), both done by User:Onetwothreeip. I added a large list of studies in between those two split-outs (3-24-2019), which made the article long, and no doubt was the impetus for User:Onetwothreeip splitting off the second group of fatalities. With all studies removed from the article, then the fatalities from 2000-2019 should be put together on the Fatal dog attacks in the United States article. (Delete the "(2000)" article.) The Fatal dog attacks in the United States page has been USED as a list of fatalities, NOT a source for information about studies about fatalities. So changing its USE after ten years just because of a three day discussion and argument about "studies" would be destructive, not constructive. Nomopbs (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works, and I think you're worrying way too much about this. Having split the list, the list is split. The articles need distinct names. We can have a redirect from this article name to List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (before 2000). Or we can have this article be a general discussion, with clear links to the two list articles. People will still find the material they want without difficulty. Bondegezou (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: You are going to do whatever you want to do anyway and apparently I'm powerless to stop it. I've been the main editor of the page since last November, Jacobm_co is second. I don't claim ownership, but I've put a hell of a lot of work into it and my opinion SHOULD matter. Red Rock Canyon, Michael2468b, etc. have made no changes to it; just created new accounts to weigh in here. PearlSt82 has done precious little, except revert occasionally, and written lots of blather and started a war about this page (and others). You fly-by-nights swoop in and have opinions and you, Bondegezou, have the biggest. Wikipedia is not the only game in town. Nomopbs (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community of many editors, who input in a variety of ways. It's great that you've created a lot of content. It's also great if that content fits in with how other Wikipedia articles work, and if that content follows sensible rules the Wikipedia community has developed. Everyone here is interested in making these articles the best they can be. We will achieve that best if we act in a spirit of cooperation, including assuming the best of each others' motives.

You are not powerless. You can put forth what you think should happen, as you have done, and everyone else is listening to what you are saying. At the same time, you don't get an automatic veto just because you've done a lot of work on an article. I hope you can see the input of others as something that complements and supports your work to make the end result better rather than viewing this through a combative lens. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

LOL Nomopbs (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jacobm co: Do you want to weigh in on this topic? You're the other wiki editor most editing on the list of fatalities. Nomopbs (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Support: I support renaming the Fatal dog attacks in the United States page to "List of fatal dog attacks in the United States" since its main purpose (as I understand it) is to list the fatal attacks in the U.S. For the studies, I haven't had time to read/understand the entire discussion that has taken place here over the last week or so, so I don't have an opinion yet on the individual studies (primary vs secondary, which ones should be included, etc). But I do agree that if the main Fatal Attacks page gets converted into a list page, then I think it makes sense for the studies to get moved to their own page... and then have further discussion about the studies there. Jacobm co (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up comment: I don't have an opinion about whether or not the main "List of fatal dog attacks in the United States" page should just be a "stub" or if it should include the list of attacks for 2010 and beyond with links to the other attacks pages (as it does now). Whatever is best according to Wikipedia policies and what the group thinks or agrees to is fine with me. Jacobm co (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a good example to follow, but the List of unnumbered minor planets page has list material for the smallest subset, in this case, the oldest, and breaks off into separate articles for the lengthier, more recent lists. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

... but then again, List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft is just a stub that links to the individual list articles. I'm not sure if there is policy/consensus established on very long/multiarticle list MOS? PearlSt82 (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Support moving the list of attacks to list articles and using this as a general discussion of the topic. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

General feedback on the topic of breed risk and breed identification in medical studies and other sources

Re: "This is a mess" - Chiming in here since this is a "Talk" page where opinions can be provided:

A major problem with the medical studies that attempt to correlate dog bite incidents and risk with breed is that they do not perform due-diligence for breed identification through canine DNA testing to validate breed. Therefore, accurate identification of breed in these studies is unreliable since they focus on human-related factors and not necessarily the canine factors such as validating breed through DNA testing. This results in erroneous conclusions/results in many of the studies because of breed identification errors (see further comments below for studies on the accuracy of breed identification). Ref: "Defaming Rover" study - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10888705.2017.1387550

Furthermore, there are a number of peer-reviewed studies (more than 10 but I'll just list several here that are more recent) on the topic of breed identification and canine DNA that conclude that identification of breed is highly unreliable (unreliable = breed identification does not match tested DNA) by experts, by shelter staff, by owners, and especially in media reports - which are the references that many (if not all) of the medical studies use as a "source" for their breed data (e.g. the hospital asks the owner/victim what type of dog was involved in an incident, the answer usually circles around to what the shelter/breeder labeled the dog to be, which studies show is unreliable breed information):

1. Ref: "Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities" study - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24299544

2. Ref: "Inconsistent identification of dogs by shelter staff" study - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109002331500310X

3. Ref: "Canine identity crisis" study - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6107223/

So unless a study (medical or non-medical) on the topic of breed risk includes valid DNA analysis of the dogs included in the study (which I've learned even the newer 2018/2019 medical studies on this topic fail to do), then any conclusion around "breed risk" is basically at best a "guess" and to the point of a comment stated here earlier, this is not how scientific conclusions should be made. Furthermore, regarding the "Fatal Attacks" pages, because the scientific consensus on the topic of breed identification is that it is unreliable (refs above), the breed information on the "Fatal Attacks" pages is likely incorrect (e.g. the Co-occurrence study above concludes that valid breed identification was only possible in ~18% of media reports and incorrect in almost half or ~40% of media reports). This devalues the validity of the "Fatal Attacks" pages (which should only include valid/verified information such as victim information, location, circumstances, and date) and it also devalues the conclusions in any studies that include "breed data" without valid canine DNA analysis. Again, just my opinion and feedback on these topics since this an open discussion on a "Talk" page. Michael2468b (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Until such time as DNA testing for breed is MANDATED in all fatal cases, you're never going to get more accurate information than you've had for the last five decades. To say that "we know nothing" and "nothing is certain" and "we'd better not say what we DO know" because no one has done DNA testing for breed on these dogs in the last five decades is ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to call everyone 'stupid' because YOU THINK they don't know what kind of dog they have. It's as ridiculous as saying no one can be convicted of assault or rape UNLESS you have DNA testing done. Next thing you know you're going to say "you can't PROVE it was my dog without DNA matching being done on the wounds". (Oh wait, they already tried that one.) Do you know how ridiculous these arguments are viewed in the LEGAL and MEDICAL communities? These arguments didn't start coming around until there were so many pit bulls doing the attacking and killing, and so the pit bull advocates have decided they need to do anything... ANYTHING... to water down the scene. Onlookers are laughing at the antics. And Wikipedia, even the Talk pages, are no place to push this doggie apologia viewpoint. If someone has a pit bull, because they bought a pit bull puppy, and it bit someone, and they told the cops it was a pit bull, and the doctor wrote down in the victim's chart "It was a pit bull", then why isn't it a pit bull? (Just using pit bull for the example, it could be any other breed. Though interestingly no other breeds have advocate organizations pushing to hide the fact one of their own just killed a person.) Nomopbs (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, nomopbs. While we can agree to disagree on a few substantive things here, I agree with you on one topic - I also hope that DNA testing will one day be required and performed after each and every incident (dog/dog and dog/human) as I think the DNA testing results will yield a much different conclusion than suggested and put an end to this needless debate (based on the conclusions and discoveries in the studies that have performed valid canine DNA testing, such as the majority of "pit bulls" are in fact mixed breed dogs with less than 50% DNA from any of the breeds classified as the "pit bull type" breeds, and many more that are identified as "pit bulls" don't have any DNA from "pit bull type" ancestry at all). Regarding "doggie apologia" - that has nothing to do with my comments at all (I apologize if my intention wasn't clear), my comments are related to following the scientific evidence vs. speculation/conjecture - and the scientific consensus (numerous peer-reviewed studies with similar conclusions) is that breed identification (by owners, shelters, experts, in media reports, and elsewhere) is unreliable without DNA analysis; therefore, by logical extension any conclusion in a study (medical or otherwise) that uses "breed data" as a data source without valid DNA analysis is by definition, questionable at best or unreliable (wrong) at worst. See my further comments/reply to Dapb567 above. Thanks. Michael2468b (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Studies are about statistics, not genetics. For decades, before DNA was even possible, it was good enough to enquire, "What kind of dog was it?" and it was recorded. No one asked for DNA "proof" if a dog was black and tan with medium coat and pointed ears; they said it was a German Shepherd. Likewise, no one argued when a dog "looked like" a Rottweiler or a Doberman. It was sufficient to say it WAS a Rottweiler or Doberman or German Shepherd because that's what it looked like. It was a word to describe the attacker. So I don't know why, after decades of no one questioning if it's really a pit bull or not, that all of a sudden there are these studies (paid for by certain organizations, including all three you mentioned above) alleging that no one can identify a pit bull. A dog that is photographed everywhere, that pit bull advocates claim are overrepresented in the media (with photographs, too), with judges writing their judgments that "a dog owner of ordinary intelligence can identify a pit bull" (Ohio v. Anderson, 1991), has become the object of a campaign to make it invisible. All of a sudden no dog anywhere can be identified without a DNA test? You're not just claiming that someone who doesn't own a pit bull can't identify them, you're claiming that every pit bull owner is too stupid to know what they have. That the mother who brings her daughter into the emergency room after the family dog bit her can't possibly know that she owns a pit bull. Well, calling everyone stupid and throwing out bathwater and baby is absurd. You don't like the medical studies because you don't like the results of the studies. The statistics weren't made to please you or displease you; they are neutral. Their intention is to lead to a better world. And don't fantasize for a moment that others in the animal, veterinary, medical, legal and scholarly worlds haven't noticed that the only studies about "Can a dog be correctly identified or not?" are all about pit bulls and no other breeds. It's been noticed. Nomopbs (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. Suggesting that canine DNA results in peer-reviewed studies should be ignored, and that we should instead go back to a time when DNA testing was unavailable and "breed" was determined only by "appearance", is what I find to be a bit absurd (it's not only denying the science, but also our modern scientific capabilities and tools). The current, modern capability of DNA testing cannot be thrown out just because it doesn't support a viewpoint. And if trying to perform a valid risk-based analysis correlating risk to breed, the DNA analysis of breed is the most critical data point of the equation (because it validates the breed - without it, the breed is just a "guess" and that's not my opinion, that's a scientific fact). Again, the scientific consensus on this topic is clear - breed identification (by owners, shelters, etc. and especially visual breed identification) is unreliable when compared to actual DNA results (and this is true for all dogs, not just "pit bull" type dogs). Numerous studies on this subject matter have concluded that there is a substantial disagreement between the assumed breed (based on the presumed or visual appearance of a dog) and the actual DNA of the dog. Trying to undermine the importance of valid breed determination through modern DNA analysis is counterproductive to any discussion around breed-based risk (as breed is a critical factor in the analysis). Furthermore, as previously discussed, "pit bull" is not a breed - The American Pit bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and American Staffordshire Terrier are breeds. "Pit bull" is a broad categorical classification based on visual appearance, not DNA ("pit bull" is not valid breed identity by DNA) which is arbitrarily applied to numerous "bully-type" dogs and dogs that are of "medium size with a blocky head" which can be applied to 3+ "pit bull type" breeds and many other mixed breeds; therefore, using the term "pit bull" is far from any kind of accurate identification of breed. So I'm not sure what you're trying to convey or prove by saying that a modern and accurate scientific tool (DNA analysis) should be thrown out and instead, that an archaic, obsolete, and unreliable method (visual identification of breed) is what should instead be used to perform a study of correlating risk to breed. Without valid DNA analysis, the "breed data" is unreliable (again, that's not my opinion, that's the scientific consensus) so without DNA, any "breed data" in a study (or elsewhere) boils down to the old saying of: "garbage in, garbage out" with respect to the study's results. I think you've made up your mind on this topic, which you are entitled to (as we all have our own opinions and biases) but in this case, respectfully, the science does not support your statements about breed identification. I don't intend to get into an exhaustive back-and-forth discussion debating the scientific consensus on this topic, so I will step away from this discussion as I've made my points on this topic for this Talk page. Thanks. Michael2468b (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Michael2468b: I'm not discounting the value of DNA. You're saying DNA is the ONLY proof positive. I'm saying statistics count, too. You're saying they are worthless. I say until DNA is MANDATED in every serious dog attack, including fatalities, you don't have a leg to stand on to discount prior studies. I think DNA testing should be mandatory, but it isn't. And to discount everything we've got up to now because DNA testing wasn't done in the past is ludicrous. Nomopbs (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Michael2468b: Have ANY of the dog that have killed humans in 2019 and 2018 been tested for breed by DNA sampling? Enquiring minds want to know. Nomopbs (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nomopbs: Again, we could go back-and-forth on this debate indefinitely and I don't intend to do that here. I've stated my points, you've stated yours. However, regarding the comment of "lead to a better world", that can only happen when we rely on, and make decisions based on, accurate information from valid science that uses accurate data and methods to reach conclusions and consensus - not on information that is known to be unreliable and inaccurate to begin with. That's why we have "study of studies" and scientific consensus - to continually analyze and improve the information available to us - which is not done by using obsolete and known-to-be unreliable methods but instead, with the most accurate and modern methods available (e.g. DNA).

Regarding DNA, as I previously commented, I do agree with you on one thing - I also hope that DNA testing will one day be mandatory for each and every dog bite-related incident (dog/dog and dog/human) as the DNA results will yield a much different conclusion than I think you're suggesting/expecting (based on existing studies on canine DNA). And regarding the previous comment of "it has been noticed" - yes, it has "been noticed" - which is why the science on this topic is continually advancing and improving (e.g. by using DNA analysis) and to your point, is also why the public opinion, many scholarly opinions (including veterinary), legal opinions (e.g. ABA position on breed-specific risk), and many other discussions on this topic are also continually occurring and progressing - so you're right, it definitely has "been noticed".

Regarding recent DNA testing after bite-related incidents, I believe you know the answer to that - no, it unfortunately (and I stress "unfortunately") has not been performed. But your question tells me that you've missed the entire point here - that on the subject of valid breed identification, the scientific consensus is that breed identification by owners, shelters, in media reports, and even by canine experts (veterinarians, etc.) is unreliable. Therefore, what we know from the science today (based on recent canine DNA studies) is that breed information cannot be used as a reliable scientific data source unless it is backed by DNA evidence. So full circle, if we don't have the DNA, basically for breed the answer is: "we think it's a... we were told it's a... it was labeled as a.... it looks like a..." but it's all conjecture and guesswork - it's by no means anywhere close to accurate or scientific. So why use or trust data that is proven to be unreliable and call it "good"? I guess you could use unreliable data (which some studies have), but doing so (as I've previously commented) completely devalues and delegitimizes any conclusions that are based on the bad data ("garbage in, garbage out") - and calls the entire study into question. What I find "ludicrous" is considering data/information as "accurate" which modern science is proving and telling us to be entirely inaccurate. I'm not sure how I can further clarify the point here

Regardless, like I mentioned, it sounds like we are on opposite sides of this issue (re: DNA and breed risk) and I don't intend to get drawn in to a debate about the validity of the current scientific consensus on the subject matter. Thanks for the debate.

@Michael2468b: Since you didn't answer my question ("Have ANY of the dog that have killed humans in 2019 and 2018 been tested for breed by DNA sampling?") I'm assuming the answer is No. The alternative is that YOU don't know. Yet you're making all these claims about studies and what they should or shouldn't have included in them when you don't even know if the information had been available (was it even available to the researchers), could have been available (were there barriers to collecting DNA samples), or SHOULD have been available (are DNA tests even accurate). You cannot discredit studies that were done with available information, especially since no DNA results have been available for studying since then. It's not like we're comparing studies created before DNA was readily available to studies created after DNA was readily available — because there are none! You act like there are. But there are none. Until such time as DNA sampling is available, is collected, and the testing is considered accurate, you have no right to discredit scientific and scholarly work created in its absence. Nomopbs (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

We/science/studies can't call a critical data source (breed) and methodology (visual ID of breed) that is now/today/currently known to be unreliable as "accurate". Trying to claim a datasource/methodology that is known to have a very poor confidence interval as accurate, knowing that the current science on the subject matter (breed ID & DNA) directly contradicts the dataset in question and has concluded that it is unreliable, is nonsense. The excuse of "well, we can't support this dataset but we still want to use it or pretend that it's accurate" doesn't fly. And to your point, no one has the right to claim data as "accurate" unless it's supported by scientific consensus and/or valid scientific methodologies. And I did answer you question along with an extended explanation. Thanks. Michael2468b (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

When I was 12 years old, I could identify about 100 different breeds of horses and most of the dog breeds. And so could all of my friends. We weren't special. But you're calling EVERYONE a stupid idiot by saying no cop, no animal control, no dog owner, no neighbor, no witness and no veterinarian can ever ID a dog breed. Why, because you have some studies done by people who use a DNA laboratory (Wisdom/Mars) that doesn't and CAN'T identify an American Pit Bull Terrier... and you call THAT science? And you call all other scientist stupid? Nomopbs (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's the scenario:

1. A study is performed to assess factor X (injuries) to Y (breed) in order to determine Z (risk).
2. The factors X and Y are considered critical factors, as they are the most important components of the study's objective to determine Z. Typically the scientific standard for the reliability of data supporting critical factors is a confidence interval (level of accuracy/reliability) of 95%, or better.
3. While data for X (injuries) likely has a high confidence interval, the data for Y is unreliable with a very low confidence interval of ~50% (based on the scientific consensus as determined by numerous, peer-reviewed canine ID/DNA studies). For most studies, a confidence interval of ~50% for a critical factor would be unacceptable as it would essentially invalidate the entire study.
4. The study is then performed, using unreliable data for a critical factor (Y), which results in a "conclusion" for Z.

Using bad/poor data for a critical factor in a study, then coming up with a "conclusion" based on that bad data, is pretty much the definition of bad/junk science. If I were involved with such a study, that used unreliable data for a critical factor, I would personally be embarrassed to put my name on it, knowing that the study's conclusion(s) are at best "unscientific" and at worst, junk. Regardless, the scientific community does a good job of identifying and challenging shaky/poor quality studies that use unreliable data for a critical factor.

At this point in our discussion, we're no longer debating the topic at hand - we're debating what constitutes the foundation of good science, sound research, and the scientific method. If debating the validity of the scientific method, there's another Wiki page for that: Scientific_Method. Michael2468b (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Not really. You're debating the definition of a dog breed. Is it "really" a pit bull only if the dog is a registered purebred? Is it "really" a pit bull if the dog passes a DNA test? What if it's a registered purebred American Pit Bull Terrier, but the DNA test says it's not actually a purebred? Does it stop being a pit bull in your mind? What if one DNA test says that it is, and another says that it's not? Can you call a dog a "pit bull" if 95% of its DNA matches the company's samples of registered pit bulls? 90% 80%? 51%? Someday, we ought to write an article on Genetic essentialism. That's the overall idea that DNA is the One True™ definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nomopbs: The main issue here is that this is a list article wrapped in something that appears to be not a list article. The simplest course of action would be to move the non-list stuff from this article onto some other article, hopefully one that already exists, and make the rest of this article a list of attacks from 2010 onwards. Then we can have an index article that contains links to the three or more lists.

The other issues that I've seen discussed are not clear and don't seem to be relevant, unless there are suggestions on how to improve those issues. When it comes to identifying dog breeds, I assume we are taking what the media reports and not just looking at what the dog looks like. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Explanation of 06/01/2019 edit to 03/04/2010 fatality

As has been explained on the Talk page for fatalities 04/05/2005 and 05/17/2007, [1] Bronwen Dickey's book "Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon" is not a reliable source for this sort of fatality information due to editorializing and incorrect reporting in order to promote a particular point of view (which is definitely not 'victim based'). In this case, instead of wiki editor Maplerover3 citing the actual autopsy report, M cites the Dickey book (in full, violating Wiki policies re copyright violations). Since I haven't seen the autopsy report, I cannot cite it, nor identify where Dickey gets it wrong or right. But due to other passages in the book, I don't trust Dickey's rendition. I have read, however, the incident report from the Lee County Sheriff's Office, which states:

• "The second victim Mrs. Horton was located in the back yard laying on the ground with a black pit bull dog standing with front paws on her. The dog was on a chain attached to a tie out stake."

and

• "Mrs. Horton had major injuries to the left side of her face, both lower legs and puncture wounds over her body."

Not seeing the autopsy report, we cannot attempt to intuit information from it (such as the idea that the worst of the dog bite injuries came AFTER the cessation of the heart), but we can only use information available. There is no need to "downplay" here the role of the attacking dog, as was done by wiki editor Maplerover3, shown in this diff [2]. And this is definitely NOT a case where we might remove this fatality from the list; after all, the victim died DURING a dog mauling and would not have died at that moment except for the fact that she was fighting for her life against a biting dog. Hence, her death rightfully belongs in this list.

Nomopbs (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Identification of breed(s) involved in incidents

The dog breed(s) or dog type(s) identified in the "Category of Dog" field should match the breed information provided in a news or law enforcement source. In the case that there is a variance (or disagreement) of the breed(s) involved in one or several news sources, then both breeds should be listed in the "Category of Dog" field. For example, if one news source describes the dog as a "mixed breed dog" and another news source describes the dog as a "Mastiff", then the "Category of Dog" field should include both descriptions as: "Mastiff or mixed breed dog". In this case, both news sources should be provided as references - one source to substantiate the breed as a "Mastiff" and the second source to substantiate the breed as a "mixed breed dog".

Note: In the case that a dog's description includes multiple (three more) breeds, then by definition it is a mixed breed dog and should be listed as a "mixed breed dog" in the "Category" field; however, the various breeds (if known) can be described in the "Circumstances" field.

After investigation, sometimes there is a final issued statement about the breed. In such an instance, the breed column should be corrected. The various earlier mentioned breeds MAY be noted in the circumstances, but should NOT be left remaining in the breed column. — Nomopbs (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

New FAQ on this Talk page

@Jacobm co and PearlSt82: I attempted to make a FAQ for the two sections which are guidelines (not discussions) and keep getting auto-archived (then reverted to put them back on the Talk page). See what you think. If you think they're appropriate that way (as a FAQ) then leave alone the two other discussion sections and they should get auto-archived next time. I don't know if there's a way to archive them manually or 'on demand'. — Nomopbs (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that should be fine, at least in theory. Let's see what the bot does - if it still keeps eating it, it might be worth pinging an admin or someone with more experience with the automation processes. PearlSt82 (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

We can set the FAQ to be "open" upon loading the page. For the moment I set it to be collapsed by default because right after it there's the two discussions on the same topic. If the bot archives the two discussions, then we'll look at it again. If we'd prefer the FAQ to be open (not collapsed), then we just have to change 'show=no' to 'show=yes' and voilà! — Nomopbs (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nomopbs: Looks good to me and both sections (breed name standardization and identification of breed involved) make sense as a FAQ. Thanks for figuring this out! Jacobm co (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to rename to "List of fatal dog attacks in the United States

I propose to rename the list as cited in the title of this section. This would address one of the concerns raised in the recent discussion on deletion with minimal disruption. Astro$01 (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Support, for the sake of accuracy; this article is a list, and we already have Fatal dog attacks. – Levivich 21:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support - might as well make the title accurate. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support - per nom. Cavalryman (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC).
• Support PearlSt82 (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support: It seems like Fatal dog attacks became the repository of related content, so a hatnote (like Main article?) should be added to the top of this article pointing to Fatal dog attacks, as well as to the top of List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2000s) and List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (before 2000). The current inclusion criteria should be moved up higher on the page. ("Below are lists of fatal dog attacks in the United States reported by the news media, published in scholarly papers, or mentioned through other sources. In the lists below, the breed is assigned by the sources.") If you do change it to "List of...", be sure to add a redirect from the old name, although I suspect that is the usual procedure with a rename. Rosebud0214 (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support as a clearly good idea. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Extra archives under a different name

After the rename from Fatal dog attacks in the United States to List of fatal dog attacks in the United States, the renaming of the Talk page archives didn't happen or failed in the process. This is a list of the other Talk page archives for this page. Normal Op (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 1 (2009-2013)
• Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 2 (2013)
• Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 3 (2013)
• Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 4 (2013)
• Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 5 (2013-2014)
• Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 6 (2013-2014)
• Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 7 (2013-2014)
• Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 8 (2013-2014)
• Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 9 (2013)
• Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 10 (2013-2014)
• Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 11 (2014-2019)
• Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 12 (2019)
• Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 13 (2019)

These two point to the first two in the above list.

• Talk:List of fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 1 (2009-2013)
• Talk:List of fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 2 (2013)

Normal Op You might approach the WP:MOVE crew for a technical move of these files across to this article, and a rebadge of the current Archive 1 and 2 to be 14 and 15. (They love this type of stuff - the trickier the better!) William Harris (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I submitted it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. We'll see how that works. :) Normal Op (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@William Harris: Yay! They fixed it... and a few other bits, too. Thanks for tip. Normal Op (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You are most welcome Normal Op - they are very good at what they do. Don't forget to leave them a "Thanks"! William Harris (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Page size

This page now has 500,603 bytes of markup; it should be subdivided, into several sections. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of fatal dog attacks in the United States

An editor has asked for a deletion review of the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States. Anyone wishing to participate in the discussion should go over there. Normal Op (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The Consenus was to endorse the no-consensus close. Astro$01 (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Fatal dog attacks "rare"?

The article opens with saying that fatal dog attacks are "rare". This seems like a loaded term, since there is no definition of what 'rare' means. Compared to the total population size of the USA, 30-50 fatalities a year might seem rare, but seen from the perspective of the people affected, it doesn't seem so negligible.

I prefer just stating the facts and letting the reader decide if the number presented should be considered rare or not. 77.241.128.151 (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I concur. Normal Op (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

No. The cited source clearly meant that deaths from attacks were rare compared to the total number of attacks. In other words, a person bitten by a dog has about a 0.001% chance of dying from that bite. Of course if rather than being bitten on the arm or leg they were mauled and had their face torn off then their odds of dying will be higher. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Name of August 28, 2020 victim needs a reliable source

The item that names "Karen Wilkerson" as a victim of an attack on August 28, 2020 cites a WP:RS, but the cited news article does not name the victim; rather, it states "A 70-year-old woman was killed by two pit bull dogs, and both of her daughters were also attacked and injured while trying to save her, deputies report" Is there a WP:RS source that identifies the victim? I have replaced the name of the alleged victim with "Not named" pending the victim's identification by such a source. Astro$01 (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks like family members on Facebook identified the victim, and from there publicized by attack victim advocacy/BSL advocacy groups like Dogsbite, all of which are unreliable sources, so "Not named"/similar should remain unless RS publicize the name. --Equivamp - talk 17:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Also adjusted the date to reflect "last Friday afternoon" (September 11) from the publication date of September 15, and the victim's age to reflect the WP:RS source. Astro$01 (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent issues with the lead paragraph

(responding to some recent edits)

@Wbm1058: The content which you have alleged to be original research is actually in the study which was already duly cited. I uploaded a (self-expiring) image copy of the portion of that study to https://ibb.co/qC6MsyF for you to see in case you have no access to the official content from the journal's website. I have highlighted two sentences which should address the specific concerns you mentioned in your edit-summaries.

The concept of a national database for dog bites has been asked for in almost every study done about fatal dog attacks in the last 30 years (more or less). They want to track BITES, not just fatalities. The CDC tracks fatalities as they get all death certificate information in the USA sent to them. What the CDC does NOT have is dog breed because it is not on a death certificate.

If you have further issues with that lead paragraph, I recommend you discuss it here on the Talk page. Normal Op (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

So you still want to say, based on a 15-year old study that analyzed data up to 2005, that deaths from dog attacks still "appear to be" increasing in 2020.

Rather than definitely say what is actually happening by citing actual numbers that the CDC tracks. Which I haven't seen or attempted to find. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There's this review and meta analysis from 2019: "Despite increasing public awareness of dog bites, the problem persists and magnitude of the problem cannot be overstated. According to the CDC, those who require treatment after dog bites are predominately children ages 5–9 years. From 1993 to 2008 there was an 86% increase in hospitalizations and from the 1980s to 2012 there was a reported 82% increase in fatal injuries." Normal Op (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy and getting the article right are of the utmost importance. This list fails accuracy based on the CDC's own disclaimer/limitations and the fact that The CDC stopped collecting breed data in dog-bite fatalities in 1998 due to the difficulty of accurately identifying a dog’s breed, even for professionals. Their final MMW report for fatalities, and very important limitations in their Editorial Note follows:

The findings in this report are subject to at least two limitations. First, because death-certificate data were not available, the two sources used for case finding in 1995-1996 probably underestimated the number of DBRFs and may represent only 74% of actual cases (1,2). Second, to definitively determine whether certain breeds are disproportionately represented, breed-specific fatality rates should be calculated. The numerator for such rates requires complete ascertainment of deaths and an accurate determination of the breed involved, and the denominator requires reliable breed-specific population data (i.e., number of deaths involving a given breed divided by number of dogs of that breed). However, such denominator data are not available, and official registration or licensing data cannot be used because owners of certain breeds may be less likely than those owning other breeds to register or license their animals (3).

Also of significance is the Editorial Note in the CDC's MMR report, Nonfatal Dog Bite--Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments --- United States, 2001, which includes the following limitations:

The findings in this report are subject to at least five limitations. First, only nonfatal injuries treated in hospital EDs were included, and injuries treated in health-care facilities outside of an ED (e.g., a physician's office or an urgent care center) or those for which no care was received were not included. Previous estimates indicate that 17% of dog bite--related injuries are treated in medical facilities, of which 38% are seen in hospital EDs (1). Second, injury diagnoses were not specified for 26% of cases. Third, limited data are available on the circumstances of the event or the dog involved. Fourth, NEISS-AIP is designed to provide national estimates and does not provide state or local estimates. Finally, although the extent of human exposure to dogs might vary by age, sex, season, or other factors, these data are not available; as a result, the analysis did not account for exposure.

The above provides a very strong reason our encyclopedia should not include breeds or breed types, circumstances, or names of victims per BLP, especially children. The closer's comment for the recent RVW specifically states "Some people (including among the endorsers) here are observing that the article still has issues that might merit a RfC, though, and I don't see anyone here explicitly contradicting them." We are now in the process of making those issues disappear, beginning with adherence to our WP:PAGs. This list fails the accuracy test for the same reasons provided by the CDC. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The CDC didn't "stop" collecting breed data; they never had any. The three or so "CDC studies" (as they are referred to) were co-authored by Sacks of CDC and Lockwood of the Humane Society of the United States. Both moved on to other posts/positions/companies, and they didn't continue that line of research. It's been an oft-repeated falsehood that "the CDC stopped collecting breed data in dog-bite fatalities in 1998 due to the difficulty of accurately identifying a dog’s breed, even for professionals." Neither Sacks nor Lockwood stated that causation or reason. They might well have decided that — after doing three studies with no differing results — there was no point in continuing that line of research. Oh, but sure let's source our assumptions about the CDC's motives from the word of a South Carolina personal injury lawyer for this [false] datum and call it a "fact".

The AVMA made a lesser-definitive statement here [3] when they wrote their own assumption: "[identifying a dog's breed accurately is difficult] is partly why the CDC stopped collecting breed data in dog-attack fatalities after 1998." But they go on to write what is probably closest to the truth: "Julie Gilchrist, a pediatrician and epidemiologist with the CDC, explained the challenges of studying dog bites during a presentation at the 2001 AVMA Annual Convention. "There are enormous difficulties in collecting dog bite data," Dr. Gilchrist said. "No centralized reporting system for dog bites exists, and incidents are typically relayed to a number of entities, such as the police, veterinarians, animal control, and emergency rooms, making meaningful analysis nearly impossible. Moreover, a pet dog that bites an owner or family member might go unreported if the injury isn't serious."

So let me recap: The CDC never had that data, the CDC expressed the difficulty of doing research on the subject because of data collection problems, the AVMA altered that to indicate it was related to breed identification problems, and it gets further twisted into the false datum "the CDC stopped collecting breed data in dog-bite fatalities in 1998 due to the difficulty of accurately identifying a dog’s breed, even for professionals," and that gets repeated everywhere as fact.

If one actually reads the studies from Sacks and Lockwood in the 1990's, one will see that they were dealing with three sources of data (i) the CDC death certificate information, (ii) Lockwood's paper files of news clippings he had collected, and (iii) the LexisNexis database (a pre-internet news archive compiled by humans where keywords for each article had to be entered by someone reading the article; quite unlike today's google searches which will find every word in every article). They describe at length in their studies how comparing these three data sets (CDC, HSUS, Lexis) showed that each search method by itself produced an incomplete list of fatalities, extrapolated how many might have been "missing" from each set, and felt their composite list might still have some remaining missing entries. Don't take their extrapolations (of missing numbers between two of the three sets) out of context. Nowadays, with the internet, less news reports of fatalities "slip through the cracks". Google had always been light-years ahead of LexisNexus of the 1990's. The only fatal events that are missing from this Wikipedia list are those that are not reported by any online media. Underreporting is irrelevant to this list and the list is appropriately tagged with "This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness."

To those WP editors who express concern about what impressions people might draw from this list: I don't recall any Wikipedia policies referring to saving people from their own conclusions, only policies directing WP editors from drawing conclusions and publishing those (SYNTH and/or OR). It's definitely not a reason to delete the list, nor to delete masses of data from the list. Hiding the list so people don't draw a conclusion from it? I don't think that's part of Wikipedia policy.

For example, the comments about "numerators and denominators". You don't need either for anything related to this list because this list isn't compiling any statistics. JJ Sacks in his studies basically stated that he was unsure if pit bulls were killing more people because there were more pitbulls or whether they were killing at a higher "rate" than other dog breeds. A pro-pitbull website made an estimate of "rates of fatalities by breed", and even they show that the pit bulls rank highest for most killed people, and that almost every dog breed with a "rate" higher than pit bull are a relatively uncommon dog breed in the USA. Sacks might have needed more accurate numbers (of fatalities, and breed numbers) to determine which was the case, but it doesn't matter the outcome because neither answer is relevant here. Knowing "rate by breed" is irrelevant to a list of fatal events. This list doesn't compile statistics and doesn't draw any conclusions from the data in the list (only from secondary sources... if they said that).

To recap: This list isn't research. It doesn't purport to be research. It doesn't need a complete set of data, nor a completely accurate "set" of data in order to report individual fatality events. The CDC might need (near) complete sets of data to do meaningful research in order to publish a study or conclusions, but that is not needed for this List of fatal dog attacks in the United States.

— Normal Op (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I provided quoted material from the CDC website explaining the limitations of the stats. Editors can now decide for themselves after reading that material whether or not WP should lower its standards and publish information the CDC itself rejects/will not publish because of serious reliability issues. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This list doesn't publish "statistics", so CDC's limitations do not apply. And again, the causation you quote is FALSE. Normal Op (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

References