Jump to content

Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andante$46 (talk | contribs) at 05:46, 5 September 2011 (→Missing from List: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Creation

Page created. Astro$01 (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if this is an independent article, then shouldn't it contrast the numbers against other deaths?

I mean if 16 people were killed by this method in the last year it would be nice to know if this is a relatively rare accident or not? Lets say compared to household accidents in one year? In 2006 17, 695 people died in accidently set fires in residential areas according to the US Census. Is that a good comparison? Or can someone think of another? There were 30 deaths involving elevators in 2006 same as dog attack if this is correct. Who thinks thats helpful info? Shall I add it? The Census people gave me this numbers thing...um how do I reference it? By the appendix, or what? I need help. Its www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ then its table 345 and 172. OK, someone please help me do the reference. Im not sure how to do it. Shall I just put in the web addy? And its got this weird CB(for Census Bureau) in front of the http. Im afraid Im a failure at doing the ref thing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipopfop (talk • contribs) 13 January 2010

Introduction

Added more context for the creation and maintenance of the page. Astro$01 (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added "main article" link to Pit Bull page, and updated Pit Bull#Fatalities reported in the United States (2006-2008) page to point to this page for more details on dog bite-related fatalities in the United States. Astro$01 (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "main article" link since this list is a "main article" to part of the Pit bull article. Astro$01 (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriateness for an Encyclopedia

This article appears have content consistent with other lists such as the List of passengers on board RMS Titanic. It also seems to pass the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not criteria, namely:

  • Not a dictionary, as no words are defined here.
  • Not a publisher of original thought, as all the items are cited
  • Not a soapbox, as no POV is stated (debatable)
  • Not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, as none of these are present
  • Not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site: all the individuals are mentioned only in the context of the manner in which they were killed, without testimonials, etc, associated with memorials.
  • Not a directory, as it doesn't direct to anything.
  • Not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal: no technical information is presented here.
  • Not a crystal ball, since all the information is verified historical information.
  • Not an indiscriminate collection of information, since the lists are associated specifically with dog-bite related fatalities.(debatable)
  • Not censored. Astro$01 (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not justification. Just because there are lists that should be and are included in Wikipedia, that does not follow that any random list can be included. This is nothing like the list of Titanic passengers, as that may have historical value. This is a list of people who were killed in a certain way. I don't see a list of people killed by household items, nor do I see a list of people killed by downed power lines. So, I do not understand why this should be here. I certainly don't see what the peoples names have to do with anything. It doesn't really tell you the circumstances of the accident, either. For all I know half these people were attacking the dogs owner, trying to hurt the dog or robbing the place. None of the information tells me if it was the dogs fault. It seems more like a stunt to humanize the victims, and thereby make it seem more tragic. I think maybe the people who compiled this should create a website, and not take up space on Wiki. Its not a place to advertise your cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipopfop (talk • contribs) 07:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is merely an informational list, not a complete article, and does not express a POV. As they say, "Dog bites man is not news; dog kills man is news", and is an important part of the expansion of information about dogs breeds under the Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Dogs effort. As it happens, only one of the people listed as being killed was believed involved in criminal trespass: "John Doe", age unknown, who was killed in 2006 in Los Angeles, CA. Astro$01 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Help requested from WP:DOGS

Lollipopfop (talk · contribs) has requested that I nominate this article at AfD as s/he was having trouble doing so him/herself. S/he left me a request on his/her talk page that basically amounted to "similar articles don't exist therefore this shouldn't" and I was going to decline the request (WP:OSE). However, I took a closer look at the article and I see one glaring problem that Lollipopfop did not mention: it lists the names of dozens of people who are may or may not have independent, nontrivial mentions in third party sources other than news stories on the tragic manner in which they died (such news stories are referenced throughout the article). Many of these individuals were minors, some infants, at the time of their deaths. Although all these individuals are deceased, I do believe that some elements of WP:BLP should apply to the deceased, including the privacy of names of individuals who do not otherwise meet notability criteria. Compare list articles such as List of people killed in duels or List of people who died in road accidents. The overwhelming majority of people named in these two lists have WP articles on them because they meet notability guidelines independent of the manner in which they died, or the death itself met notability guidelines.

An easy solution here would be to delete the names and merge all relevant information into Dog attack (since it would no longer be a "list"; compare List of people killed by crocodiles). However, I am seeking some help from the folks involved in WikiProject Dogs, as the article creator, Astro$01 (talk · contribs), claims above that this article is "an important part of the expansion of information about dogs breeds [sic] under the Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Dogs effort". —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would be inappropriate to create, for example, a list of the names of the survivors of non-fatal dog attacks, to include the names of living relatives of a fatal dog attack victim, or to try to develop separate articles for the different decedents; however, the WP:BLP#Dealing with articles about the deceased policy is very clear that it applies specifically to the living, so I do not see how it can apply in this case or to any list of decedents.
I think a much better analog for the list of people killed by dogs is the List_of_fatal,_unprovoked_shark_attacks_in_the_United_States. Both types of incident are quite rare, so it seems to me both meet the criteria set forth in WP:PEOPLE#Lists of people, where the question is not whether each of the individuals were notable, but rather whether the topic of the article itself was notable as defined in WP:PEOPLE, viz:

The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."

I propose instead that the Dog attack "See Also" the List of people killed by dogs in the United States just as the Shark Attack article has a "See Also" reference for the List_of_fatal,_unprovoked_shark_attacks_in_the_United_States. I also propose to start fleshing out the incident descriptions to more closely match the type of information in the list of shark attacks to make it a better overall list. Astro$01 (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Canine Research Council

Proposed for deletion, since it is not clear what the point of this section is in a list about people killed by dogs. If the point is that this person, Ms. Delise, does not rely on media for reports of people being killed by dogs then that seems irrelevant for the purposes of this article since media reports meet WP:RS verifiability criteria. The rest of the paragraph is concerned with why dogs attack, which is probably more suited for inclusion in the Dog attack article. If information is available from this source regarding other specific, verifiable instances of people being killed by dogs, or a summary of information regarding the people who were killed (in the same manner as the CDC and Clifton sections report them) then that information should be included here. Astro$01 (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted NCRC reference. Astro$01 (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Delise, founder and director of Research for the National Canine Research Council, has documented and investigated fatal dog attacks for over 20 years. A search of Ms. Delise, prior to deleting this section, would easily have revealed that she is the leading authority on fatal dog attacks in the U.S. Her inclusion in this page is justified by any verifiability criteria. A search of the NCRC website would have also revealed "informaton available from this source regarding other specific, verifiable instances of people being killed by dogs.."

The deletion of the NCRC section is without justification. The NCRC provides documented, reliable information on fatal dog attacks and uses additional sources (in addition to the media) to obtain information on these cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Record44 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have removed the section as it does not meet wikipedias criteria for a reliable source. The NCRC is primarily based on the writings of an individual, and in no cases is any of the material peer reviewed, published externally or subjected to a verification process. The NCRC is predominantly written in first person, and therefore is considered a self-published source WP:SPS. This material would be acceptable if it can be demonstrated that the author is an established expert on the topic, but as it stands the NCRC website does not indicate this (ie qualifications, academic publications etc). In addition, Karen Delise does not appear to be a leading authority on fatal dog attacks as the majority of search results are connected to blogs (generally unsuitable for wikipedia inclusion) and are not academic or vetinary publications. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clifton reference is deleted for same reason as NCRC deletion - Mr. Clifton edits and self publishes his own magazine - Animal People-- and his study and writings are not peer reviewed, published externally or subjected to a verification process. Mr. Clifton is an editor with no expertise on the topic and has no documented qualifications or academic publications.76.21.235.176 (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Item restored. You may want to review this entry at Best Friends Animal Society (these are the folks who are currently keeping about 20 of Michael Vick's pit bulls): [1]. The Animal People site itself [2] lists three staff members for the newspaper; Animal People, Inc. is a registered non-profit organization based in Clinton, Washington (see the Guidestar non-profit information report at [3]), so there seems to be a bit more behind it than someone just sitting at their laptop "self-publishing" their materials. Astro$01 (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton (and his wife-partner) own the magazine Animal People that this study is published in. Clifton is no longer affliated with Best Friends and even if he was - that does not change that fact that he published his own study in his own magazine. So, it is just someone sitting at their laptop. By contrast, please look at the board of advisor for the NCRC, which include genetists, vets, animal control directors and veterinary behaviorist. Unlike Clifton, Ms. Delise was an expert witness in Diaz vs. Denver, Cochrane vs. Ontario and numerous other fatal dog attack related court cases. Her material was cited and used in Toledo vs. Tellings and NCRC has been cited in numerous peer-review medical journal articles.

None of Mr. Clifton's material has been used in any court case, nor has he been cited in any scientific journal. You cannot possibly claim NCRC is not a qualifable source and then use Clifon's self published material.Record44 (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. An unsubstantiated rant (such as the above) is insufficient justification to remove a WP:RS source. Before you deleting an entire section you need to provide your references for examination and discussion. Astro$01 (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- It is not a "rant" and your use of this description of my explanation indicates you have a vested interest in seeing Clifton's self published material included while deleting NCRC material. NCRC material was deleted as "The NCRC is primarily based on the writings of an individual, and in no cases is any of the material peer reviewed, published externally or subjected to a verification process. The NCRC is predominantly written in first person, and therefore is considered a self-published source WP:SPS." Again, I will state - The same, and to a larger extent, is true of Clfiton. YOu have not given any evidence that Clifton's study is anything but a self published "rant" by a man (and his common-law-wife) that own their own magazine and publishes their own "findings." Unless you can provide references showing that Clifton's study is indeed something other than a "person sitting behind a laptop" - Clifton's material will be deleted according to the same rules that allowed you to deleted the NCRC citation. Record44 (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. An unsubstantiated rant is one in which claims are made without presenting substantive evidence. You have no citations in your rant. Therefore, it us unsubstantiated. You may cast all the aspersions you wish, but without evidence, it is nothing. Astro$01 (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undid: NO - once again - you deleted NCRC using the excuse it was self-published material. The very same is true of Clifton's Report - and it will continue to be deleted until you can provide references that Clifton's study is something other than a self published report. Record44 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. You will need to provide evidence to back up your claims. Merely repeating them is not evidence. Astro$01 (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- For the 4th time ! - Clifton's "study" is published in his OWN magazine (Animal People) - Animal People is owned by himself and his "wife" = That is the very definition of self published. Furthermore, Clifton has absolutely no professional or specialized knowledge of dogs - he is merely a self-proclaimed editor (again of his OWN magazine) who merely expresses his own POV about dogs (i.e., pit bulls).

There is really nothing to prove here or give "evidence" - it is self-evident -- and without question all of Clifton's writing are self-published - Even the most cursory glance at Animal People magazine clearly shows that it is owned by Clifton.

You deleted NCRC under the (false) claim that their material is self-published, yet truly self-published material you insist on posting - clearly you have an agenda or a POV that is driving you to such lengths.Record44 (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep making all these accusations, yet you provide no evidence. This is not the "reader response" page for a story in the on-line edition of a newspaper: merely repeating an accusation for the 4th or the 44th does not make it so - you must provide evidence for your claims to be considered. Try using a reference pointer to an independent WP:RS source. For example, Clifton is cited as a expert source in independent WP:RS news reports from Fox News Channel [4], CNN [5], The New York Times [6], and DVM [7]. These are examples of third party citation which put the Clifton Report into the WP:RS category. Astro$01 (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton study is self published in Animal People - (Kim Barlett is Clifton's wife)http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/apHomeTeam.html Baker7479 (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-published" means "self-published." If Mr. Clifton's wife is the publisher, then Mr. Clifton works for her. By definition, it is not "self-published" since Mr. Clifton is neither his wife nor the publisher. QED. Astro$01 (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"ANIMAL PEOPLE editor Merritt Clifton" --- Direct quote from link - Do not attempt to "split hairs" Merritt Clifton founded Animal People, Merrit Clifton Edits Animal People, Merrit Clifton appointed his wife as "publisher" of Animal People. Baker7479 (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted sock puppetry Astro$01 (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Record44, it seems that the material that was deleted and the material that wasn't deleted was of similar quality. (side note: hopefully, I made this entry correctly) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brons2 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The claim that Animal People is self-published is peculiar, especially as it comes from an anonymous poster. Animal People Inc is a highly regarded international animal welfare publication, with tens of thousands of paid subscribers. Mr Clifton does not "own" the institution, as is clearly evident on the masthead. Mr Clifton did not "appoint" Kim Bartlett, who is the publisher and actually hired Mr Clifton. The comments and bizzare, unsupported claims of Record44 and others on this page are evidence of a vendetta. --Woodlandpath (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing Animal People and Merritt Clifton's study it is quite evident that no one reviews his data. He clearly states he collects the data himself and then publishes it in Animal People, of which he is the editor. This is the very definition of self-published.6Nikko6 (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Their website clearly states "ANIMAL PEOPLE has no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. " Further the burden of proof does not lie in the parties claiming their work is not peer reviewed, it lies with those claiming it IS. If you would like their work included in the article you must provide proof that it meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. The case has been made that they are not peer reviewed, since that is not something they would advertise the logical thing to do is prove the contrary, the same is true of them being experts. I think it's shocking anyone who goes out of their way to edit an article needs reminding, but right below the edit screen it clearly says: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Do so before making any further changes. 

Keytud (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The overall concept of humans being killed by dogs is notable, the individual entries on the list of course need to be properly sourced but do not need to be notable in and of themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people killed by dogs in the United States

List of people killed by dogs in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entries in Lists of people articles should have individual notability. Not a single entry in this list has its own article. (There's Diane Whipple but she is not currently on the list.) Also, given that we don't have accurate sources that tells us the total number of fatal attacks per year there is no way to verify the completeness of the list. This would normally not be a problem but the article uses statistics from the list to explicitly point out the over-representation of Pit Bulls in fatal attacks. This is original research. Any useful non-list info should go into Dog attack. Dodo bird (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Move The proposed deletion misses the point of the guideline.
"Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the notability criteria above"

The "Notability criteria above" state,

"Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."

The List of people killed by dogs in the United States is a valid topic for the same reason that the List_of_fatal,_unprovoked_shark_attacks_in_the_United_States is a valid topic: fatal shark attacks, like fatal dog attacks, are unusual occurrences and are therefore "worthy of notice". As it happens, both the Pit Bull and Dog attack article references the List of people killed by dogs in the United States just as the List_of_fatal,_unprovoked_shark_attacks_in_the_United_States is referenced by the Shark Attack article. The list proposed for deletion has therefore been ranked as a "High" importance list by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dogs.

With regard to "Completeness of the list", it's easy enough to add:

rather than using it as an excuse to demand the deletion of the entire article.

The claim of "original research" fails since the percentage calculations (percentage) are merely arithmetic summarizing the list entries shown in the article itself, and so merit exemption under WP:CALC." Astro$01 (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the big hang-up here is that this is a List of People... then it seems to me an easy compromise is to rename the list to be List of Fatal Dog Attacks in the United States, at which point the people are merely ancillary information to complete the description of the fatal dog attack, rather than the main point of the list. Astro$01 (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New Rule: No one in this discussion can take into account the facts about how many of these dogs were pit bulls. This information has not been intentionally slanted by people with a bias against pit bulls. By this I mean, there are not a bunch of fatal dog attacks that involved cocker spaniels or some such that have been slyly left off the list by POV sneeks. If the facts contained make pit bulls and pit bull mixes look bad and the ones you know are lovely dogs, BE THAT AS IT MAY! It the business of Wikipedia to report the facts as they are, not to make sure that they don't support one view over another. Get a valid reason or don't opine in this section. In my humble opinion, of course. Chrisrus (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: Relisting debate to give other users a chance to respond to Astro$01's proposal to refocus the article on the events, not the people. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, but Move to "List of Fatal Dog Attacks in the US", so that users like some of those who voted "delete" will stop thinking of it/calling it a list of people. It's a list of notable "Events", gives some idea of how many events, and what they have or don't have in common, and how important it is/isn't. Chrisrus (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Hobit. The article contains important and well referenced information. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important information, well-sourced and well-written. --Crunch (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, prefer Merge - there are legitimate concerns about original research here, as well as giving undue attention to the deaths of non-notable people. However, the article is well-written and useful, and provides reasonable evidence that dog attacks in the United States are a notable subject. I would prefer this article to be merged into Dog attack or rewritten to be about Dog attacks in the United States rather than simply a list, but as it is I think it is probably acceptable. Robofish (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Source or remove unreferenced material, discuss entries that may or may not fit the criterion. Notability is a concept that does not extend to articles contents. We need a way to talk about material of some importance that does not warrant a full article, and combination articles are lists are the obvious way. For one thing, those (sometimes called deletionists) who want to limit the number of articles about dubiously notable subjects in Wikipedia should approve very much of keeping lists such as this, for it removes the pressure to turn borderline notable things into full articles. If I were what is sometimes called a rabid inclusionist I would instead say, instead, keep , but as a summary, and expand each item possible into a full article. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What criteria is there? There is no grey area here. It's simply a list of all the people who were killed by dogs. We already have more than 150 entries for a 5-6 years period. Going by the CDC study, we would have 327 more for 1979 to 1999. A complete list for just the past 30 years would have 500-600 entries. I doubt most entries would be anywhere close to meeting the notability guidelines. When we total the deaths per year and % of specific breeds involved in those deaths (or draw any other conclusions) using the table, we are using those news sources as primary sources. It's using original research to push a POV. Anything that is of importance in the list when seen as a whole(such as circumstances of attack, age of victim, breeds involved, year by year trend) should be in prose form in Dog attack(or appropriate spin-off) and drawn from secondary sources. --Dodo bird (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've noted that some of the concerns here refer to the insufficient notability of individual events listed in the table. This is not a point here, in my opinion, WP:NOTNEWS is unapplicable. The topic - deadly dog attacks in the USA - is what we should judge. It is a notable topic, as is confirmed by the cited studies, and the detailed and verifiable information on individual attacks is a bonus here. There's no POV in the article, the summary follows secondary sources, especially the claims about the deaths per year and % of specific breeds involved. I can see no benefits for this project in deleting this kind of information. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful information, well-sourced. What should be included is a very different debate from whether the page should exist Vartanza (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any notable/sourced information to Dog attack or any suitable target, but don't include the list of non-notable events and individuals per WP:NOTNEWS. --Jmundo (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any non-list info to Dog attack and then redirect. As mentioned previously, there have been hundreds if not thousands of recorded lethal dog attacks in the United States. A complete list is neither maintainable nor encyclopedic. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reformulate list as "attacks" not "people attacks." I don't see WP:POV issues here, I think this is far enough from WP:OR that that's not an issue as per WP;CALC, the article seems sourced and WP:V. WP:NLIST, on the other hand, seems to me to be a bigger question. NLIST would definitely address this article if it were really only a list. While it is not only the list, I understand the concerns, and to my mind the real encyclopedic value of that list is not the victim names but the other information about the attacks, it seems simple enough to simply reformulate the list, remove the victim names, and call it a day.--j⚛e deckertalk 16:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Astro$01 (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people killed by dogs in the United States → List of fatal dog attacks in the United States — In the recent discussion about deleting this page, a number of editors felt it was not appropriate to have a list of people..., so changing the name may reduce confusion. Astro$01 (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This may not be policy, but I strongly believe that all entries in a "List of people..." article should have WP articles. The way the article is written makes the dog attacks themselves the primary subject, not the people killed in the attacks. At the proposed title, the names are "ancillary information", as Astro$01 called it in the AfD discussion, which is, I believe, just how the article presents it. —KuyaBriBriTalk 05:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Nergaal (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

help!

please put some level of protection on this page, which is commonly attacked by vandals. Chrisrus (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

requested change

Given the media's and people's poor ability to determine the correct breed of a dog involved in an attack, any reference to a pit-bull-type (or other-type) dog is not an accurate representation of the data. In review of the data on this page, a number of the attributions are false and the dog's breed was subsequently found to not be "pit-bull"-type. Crankymate (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)crankymate[reply]

If the source says a dog was a cocker spaniel, we say so as well. We just say what the source says, so that's that. I suppose the reason that so many are pit bulls lies in the fact that humans are so much larger and more powerful than most types of dogs that they are usually able to resist attacks by beagles and such and don't die. So that's probably at least part of the reason most of the fatal attacks are by the most powerful breeds, pit bulls, German shepards, Rotweilers and such, and not small or less powerful dogs like poodles and chihuahuas, some of which are pretty vicious but are too small or not strong enough to win a fight with any but the most defenseless humans. There also might be some tendency among pit bulls in general to persue attacks longer or in particular attack styles that might explain why bigger dogs like spaniels and grayhounds, which don't seem predisposed to be attack or persue and attack beyond a certain point. But that's just me talking. The point is, we just repeat the facts as stated in the sources, we don't pass judgement or second-guess whether a newspaper reporter is skilled in dog breed identification enough to tell a pit bull from a bull terrier. Chrisrus (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

found a mistake in this article...

Fatalities in 2010 January 13 Makayla Woodard

correction: Makayla Woodard was killed on January 12 2011 She was killed by 2 pit bulls in HER own yard (please correct this in the Fatalities in 2011)

Thank you so much!

Makayla Woodard's Family Makayla's Law Woodard on facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makaylawoodard (talk • contribs) 03:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, welcome to Wikipedia. You can edit the article yourself. If you need help, ask, but it's very easy.
Second, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the statement "Killed by neighbor's two pit bulls" is false, that it's not what the article says, or just should be changed for some other reason? I'm not sure but it looks like that's what the reference says, that she was killed by her neighbor's two dogs, whose owner apparantly allowed to wander around the neighborhood loose. If it also says that she was killed in her own yard, I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to add that fact if you want to. It'd be good for the article to add that information from the reference if that's what it says. Chrisrus (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

summary table is wrong

Hi,

Is there a reason that the summary table showing top killing breed by year does not match the detailed accounts given later?

It isn't just off a little, it is totally wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvguy8258 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're right! Have we been the victim of some vandalism? It says that Cocker Spaniels were #2 and there is no record of a cocker spaniel ever having killed anyone. Actually, I have a cocker and he couldn't kill anyone even if he tried, he's too little and weak, not to mention the soft mouth (in 14 years I've never seen him to the terrier shake even with his favorite toy) and tendency to retreat quickly from confrontation. I'll look into the History, please feel free to help. We're trying to track down the edit where cockers were added, maybe that's where it happened. Chrisrus (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I reverted the edits that screwed it up. Does it seem correct now? (oo..that stood for six days, we've got to do better than that). Thanks, Wvguy! You're a hero! Chrisrus (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find this page to be an interesting endeavor, I appreciate the work that must go into it, but to my understanding the edits about the Cocker Spaniel are still in place but without any citation. It seems fishy anyways considering the size and demeanor of an average dog of that breed. My question is, at what point do we remove (if we do) an edit like that? U21980 (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear where the summary table data is coming from. Is it from the CDC report etc? Is it supposed to summarize the detailed accounts given later? It does not match either the CDC or the detailed accounts.

It appears wrong in its assignment of #1 killer in all years. 76.92.68.79 (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)wvguy8258(I have no idea how to sign my comments)[reply]

Given this information, shouldn't we get rid of the summary table? At least until we can construct an accurate version of it? Also Wvguy8258 you can sign your comments by typing four tildes (U21980 (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)) (take out the parenthesis surrounding the tildes before submitting your post though). U21980 (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of Article

Hey everyone, I was wondering why the article only covers 1988 briefly but jumps ahead to 2005-2011, especially considering the 2000 study released by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention along with the Clifton Report in 2009 which list fatalities for years that aren't covered by this page. Thanks! U21980 (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is notable to me as well. If you read the methods, the CDC report was exhaustive in not double counting fatalities and utilized several sources of information, including animal control records. 76.92.68.79 (talk)Wvguy8258 —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I also wondered and decided probably that's as far back as contributers could find specific articles on Google news search and stuff. See how each one links to some local paper or something. It's hard to do that with articles from 1889, I guessed to myself, so those didn't make the list. One would have to go directly into the CDC report itself in order to find out more about intervening years as far as listing specific dog attacks with names and details. I suspect that the CDC report didn't go into as much detail as we do about all the people who died and the dogs that killed them and so on. Has anyone read it? Could we use it to fill in the chart for the intervening years? I hope it just doesn't say "one person in denver" and nothing more about each one. Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually planning on reading the CDC report. If it is as exhaustive as Wvguy8258 states that it is, then we may be able to compile the figures and place them onto the page. If it isn't exhaustive though, would we want to state that in the paragraph about the CDC report, just to let readers know why its information is not included in the article? U21980 (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I believe what I wrote was misleading. The CDC report covers those years with a fine comb using multiple data source but does NOT talk about each attack. They present summary data only which shows deaths by breed type for each year. So, seeing how this is a LIST it is likely not appropriate here. Sorry again. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Wvguy8258[reply]
Hey Wvguy, thanks for the update. This presents an interesting dilemma for us. Would that type of information be useful if it included only confirmed cases, but did not identify specifics for each incident? U21980 (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cocker Spaniel edit

Please help me go through the history and find out the cocker spaniel edit on the summary tables and undo that and any other damage to how it was. Cocker Spaniels! Ha! Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would probably date back to the creation of the summary table. I'll try looking into it, but I have a suspicion that this person probably didn't put too many details in his comments about the edit, so it will take a bit of hunting. U21980 (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing from List

Two fatal dog attack victims are not on the list. Darla Napora who was killed in August in Pacifica, CA, was on the list and then deleted. Today a 13 day old infant in Cyprus, Texas, was mauled and killed by the family's pet pit bull that had never shown aggression before.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States&oldid=448529797"