Talk:Fatal dog attacks in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Should we start a 2013 Section.

I think there has been Fatal dog attacks so far, this is one http://www2.wspa.com/news/2013/jan/09/6/greenwood-county-woman-dead-after-dog-attack-ar-5328600/ Mantion (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Chrisrus (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok so I went ahead and started the 1013 section with this report you provided (thank you) above. I think this one is even better, though: http://www.capitalbay.com/latest-news/294990-65-year-old-grandmother-of-13-mauled-to-death-by-pet-pit-bull-while-babysitting-three-grandkids-who-witnessed-bloody-attack.html so please, anyone who would, feel free to use this or any other WP:RS you have about it. For example, we should say that she was the children's grandmother. Chrisrus (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I cut when I should have pasted. I was trying to start a section for the new year with this above attack, which seems to be the first of 2013. I will undo the last three edits and try to do it right this time. Chrisrus (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

2011 is way off

There were like 30 dog related fatalities in 2011. You can find a complete list in the Clifton report or dogsbite.org. They also have links to all news reports. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. Can you help complete it? Chrisrus (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

DogsBite.Org is a completely biased source who not only includes ambiguous reports but often erroneous reports. Any attacks found through them should be independently sourced. Some of their "proof" on their pages for information do not lead to sources Wiki editors would even accept. (Example, a mock college trial with fictitious character as proof of dog attacks in history.) Seola (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

1988-2000

There are several places where 1988 should be replaced with some other year -- 1999 or 2000. The article references aCDC study published in 2000, covering the years of 1979 to 1998. That article lists (in two year periods ) 1987-88 there were 22 deaths and 1997-1998 there were 27 deaths, none listed as labrador. The authors summery tables list 2 in 1988, labs, and then skips and lists, year by year - 2001, 2002 etc. One has to presume there were some deaths each year between 1998 and 2001, and always more than 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apburke110 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do set this right. We have such a gaping hole before 2000. Chrisrus (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Truston Heart Liddle

Interestingly, the citation we are using for the story about Truston Heart Liddle, http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Feb/25/ln/ln04a.html, calls the animal a "Beagle Mix". Is there any reason we shouldn't call it that as well? Chrisrus (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree - this should be updated. Anyone disagree where a leading breed "mix" is noted, that it should not be used? If this is the case, then "Pit-bull type" should be updated to "Mixed Breed". Otherwise, leave pit-bull type in, and add in information like "beagle mix" if it's reported for continuity and conformity.Seola (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Lemmie have a look....

 Done

2011 is way off

There were like 30 dog related fatalities in 2011. You can find a complete list in the Clifton report or dogsbite.org. They also have links to all news reports. Wvguy8258 (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. Can you help complete it? Chrisrus (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

DogsBite.Org is a completely biased source who not only includes ambiguous reports but often erroneous reports. Any attacks found through them should be independently sourced. Some of their "proof" on their pages for information do not lead to sources Wiki editors would even accept. (Example, a mock college trial with fictitious character as proof of dog attacks in history.) Seola (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

1988-2000

There are several places where 1988 should be replaced with some other year -- 1999 or 2000. The article references aCDC study published in 2000, covering the years of 1979 to 1998. That article lists (in two year periods ) 1987-88 there were 22 deaths and 1997-1998 there were 27 deaths, none listed as labrador. The authors summery tables list 2 in 1988, labs, and then skips and lists, year by year - 2001, 2002 etc. One has to presume there were some deaths each year between 1998 and 2001, and always more than 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apburke110 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do set this right. We have such a gaping hole before 2000. Chrisrus (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Truston Heart Liddle

Interestingly, the citation we are using for the story about Truston Heart Liddle, http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Feb/25/ln/ln04a.html, calls the animal a "Beagle Mix". Is there any reason we shouldn't call it that as well? Chrisrus (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree - this should be updated. Anyone disagree where a leading breed "mix" is noted, that it should not be used? If this is the case, then "Pit-bull type" should be updated to "Mixed Breed". Otherwise, leave pit-bull type in, and add in information like "beagle mix" if it's reported for continuity and conformity.Seola (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Lemmie have a look....

 Done

Jennifer Brooke

Why is the breed in the Jennifer Brook case identified as "Mixed Breed"? Chrisrus (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Updated citation to (KMGH-TV: Denver, Colorado[1]), date and breed information now match WP:RS.

Thanks!  Done Chrisrus (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Baby Boy

Why is Baby Boy, the dog who killed Somer Clugston, being identified as a "Mixed breed"? Chrisrus (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The cited link was dead. I have found another citation (Los Angeles Times[2]) and updated the article for age of victim and breed of dog. Astro$01 (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!  Done Chrisrus (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Tre'sean Forsman

Why is the dog that killed Tre'sean Forsman being identified as a "Mixed breed"? Chrisrus

Added URL citation for (Seattle Post-Intelligencer[3]) and updated date of attack and breed type to reflect WP:RS. Astro$01 (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!  Done Chrisrus (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Bonnie Page

Why is the dog that killed Bonnie Page being identified as a "Mixed breed"? Chrisrus

Updated citation to (The New York Times[4]) and revised breed identification consistent with WP:RS. Astro$01 (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!  Done Chrisrus (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Alice Broom

Why are the six dogs that killed Alice Broom being identified as a "Labrador Retriever–Pit bull-type mix?

The original link is dead. The Gainesville Sun[5] identified the dogs as "Labrador-Pit bull mix" when reporting the owner's conviction for manslaughter in 2006; however, when the owner appealed his conviction, the Florida District Court of Appeal in 2007 said a veterinarian had identified them [in court, under oath] as "part pit bull"[6] but the court generally referred to them as "pit bulls" on its way to upholding the owner's conviction, and The Gainesville Sun referred to them as "pit bull-mix"[7] in an article about a different dog attack several years later. I also added a link to the article in the Star-Banner (Ocala, Florida[8]) that covered the decision and referred to the dogs as "pit bull mix." I have updated the reference to cite the decision of the Florida District Court of Appeal, as it has a pretty detailed discussion of the relevant facts, and will use "pit bull-mix" as the breed type since the sworn testimony and subsequent reviews labelled them as such. Astro$01 (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!  Done Chrisrus (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Update to "breed" labels in the summary tables

The summary tables were grouping pit-bull type, pit-bull mix, and pit bulls (implying purebred dogs) together and calling them all "pit bulls". In order to fix this with the minimum amount of disturbance to the page, I updated the summary table to indicate that the totals for dogs involved in the most fatal attacks included not just "pit bulls," but also "pit-bull type" and "pit-bull mix" dogs. An alternative would be to treat "pit bull", "pit-bull type", and "pit-bull mix" as separate breeds and not lump them together as the breed responsible for the most attacks. However, this would require completely re-organizing the table.Onefireuser (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Astro$01 changed my edit to "Pit bull or mix." However, if we want this column to be the sum of dogs that were classified in the yearly tables as "pit bulls", "pit bull type", and "pit bull mixes," then we need to keep the language broad enough that includes all three designations. Pit bull sounds like a breed of dog. Pit bull type sounds like a dog that resembles that breed, regardless of its own pedigree. Pit bull mix sounds like mix of a purebred pit bull and some other breed. So it seems like one way to handle this is by calling the dogs "Pit bulls, pit bull types, and pit bull mixes." However, if Astro$01 finds that too wordy, shortening it to "Pit bull or mix" does not reflect the yearly data. Instead, writing "Pit bull type or mix" is probably broad enough to include all 3 designations. An alternative solution would be to treat "pit bulls" and "pit bull type" dogs as different dogs and not add them together on the summary table. However, that would require recounting and it would decrease the number of attacks that could be attributed to a single type or breed of dog. Onefireuser (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

NPOV dispute

This article does not seem to meet Wikipedia's standard for neutral point of view (NPOV). NPOV, along with Verifiability, and No Original Research, is one of Wikipedia's 3 core content policies.

The article "Wikipedia:NPOV dispute" states that one of the common ways that an article can fail to meet NPOV standards is: <block quote> While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.</block quote>

This article fits this description. At least two of the fatalities listed (Diane Jansen and John Reynolds Sr) were not clearly described in the primary references cited as fatal dog attacks. Diane Jansen, in fact, was specifically described as NOT a fatal dog attack. It seems that these fatalities are being included based on Wikipedia editors' personal judgement, which constitutes a non-neutral point of view. There may be many other fatalities listed in this article that were not clearly described by the news media as fatal attacks. Another factor that may exacerbate the non-neutral point of view even further is if some attacks have been selectively omitted from this article.

Suggestions for ways to make this article conform better to NPOV standards: 1. Add a column to the tables that says something along the lines of "Cause of death determined by medical examiner to be dog attack." For most of the cases, we might have to write "unknown" in this column. But for others we would be able to write "Yes" or "No." For example, the Diane Jansen case would be "No." 2. Add a new section to the article that describes the research methods employed by the editors of this article. This would make it clear how fatal cases were selected for inclusion in the article. For example, if a dog accidentally kills a small child, and the child's family decides that they did not want their tragedy broadcast across the national media, would the incident be included in this Wikipedia article?

I'd like to hear other editors' ideas about how to help this article conform to NPOV standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefireuser (talk • contribs) 19:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Two additional incidents have been found to not necessarily represent verifiable fatal dog attacks: Ethel Horton and Maryann Hanula. Editors, please keep in mind that Wikipedia articles must be verifiable! As is written: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." I understand that some people may consider these incidents to be fatal attacks, but we can only include them in this page if they are verifiable. That means that the primary sources need to show that they are fatal attacks. If the primary sources say that the person actually died of something other than their dog bite, then it is not our role as Wikipedia editors to insert our own different conclusions. I have not had time to check all of the references on this page, but several of the few incidents that I have checked are not verifiable as fatal attacks. I hope other editors will also take a look and try to make sure that the incidents included in this page are verifiable. Onefireuser (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Agreed. There is NO reference that supports the claim that Maryann Hanula's death was attributed to the injuries she received from a dog attack 7 months prior. Her obituary only states that she died "peacefully in her sleep." No media outlet reported that her death was a result of the dog attack the year before. Addditonally, Arizona is a closed state and autopsy findings are not available to the public. This entry should be deleted. Mauro1929 (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Should Ethel Horton be included in this list?

According to Dogsbite.org, "The Lee County Coroner reports that the victim [Ethel Horton] died of a heart attack "before the dog did much damage to her." Dogsbite.org decided, based on the tone of voice of the coroner, that the incident counted as a fatal dog attack. Dogsbite.org is of course free to draw that conclusion if they wish. However, a Wikipedia article is expected to hold a neutral point of view. If the coroner reports "that the victim died of a heart attack" then it is not the role of us as Wikipedia editors to impose our own point of view. Onefireuser (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

1. Dogsbite.org is not a reliable source.
2. The cited source ([9]) says

   Lee County Coroner Alfred Elmore said Ethel Horton, 65, of Lucknow, died of a heart attack around noon Thursday after being attacked by her nephew's pit bull. Officials say Horton was watching the dog while her nephew was out of town, when it attacked her 71-year-old husband, Jerry Horton. Ethel tried to defend her husband using a plastic pipe, but the dog turned on her. Elmore said Horton had an enlarged heart, and the dog attack caused her heart to fail.[emphasis added]

   I think that puts the article as written on a strong foundation. Astro$01 (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Should Virgil Cantrell's killer be changed to American Bulldog or "unknown"?

According to the NCRC (which may not be ideal as a Wikipedia source), Virgil Cantrell's killer was a pedigreed American Bulldog. I have been unable to find this reported in the news media, but it is possible that by the time that was known, the media was no longer interested in the story. How would other editors suggest handling this? Our duty on Wikipedia is to never supply false information. If Virgil Cantrell's killer was indeed a pedigreed American Bulldog, then we cannot in good faith report that he was killed by a pit bullOnefireuser (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

I was not able to find the Canine Research Council page you refer to. Using reference templates on talk pages doesn't work because there's no reference section at the bottom. Please copy and paste us the URL so we can see what you are talking about. Chrisrus (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that bad link. The proper link is: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/2011%20Final%20Investigative%20DBRF%20Report.pdf. I don't think we'd want to use this as a reference because the NCRC is an advocacy organization. But if we can verify their assertion, we'd want to make the change.Onefireuser (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

National Canine Research Center is not a reliable source (per consensus above). Its view is irrelevant. Astro$01 (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said in my original statement, the NCRC is not an ideal source. However, the question here is not about the relevance or irrelevance of their viewpoint. We're talking about the the verification of a fact, not a viewpoint. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not a single advocacy organization's views. The purpose of my original statement was to point out that the NCRC had put forth the fact, not the view, that the dog was an American Bulldog with pedigree papers. Although we would not want to use the NCRC as a source, we would want to see if this can be corroborated from a neutral source. As I said, I was unable to find a source to corroborate it, and that is why I asked other editors if they new of a source. The point of Wikipedia is to provide the most accurate, unbiased information available--NOT to present the viewpoint of a single organization of individual, no matter how sure that individual is of the veraciousness of his or her viewpoint.Onefireuser (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Should Mable Harrison McCallister be included on this list?

The referenced article () states that Mable was the victim of a dog bite. However, it goes on to say:

privacy laws also are denying Eyewitness News access to records that could indicate why Ms. McCallister died in hospice care New Year's Eve. Did she succumb to complications that developed from the dog bites? Or from a previous medical condition?

As I have pointed out previously 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs every year. So every time someone dies a few days after the attack, it cannot automatically be counted as a "fatal dog attack." The victim was 84-years old, and if the news organization is saying that they could not determine if she died of dog bites or from an underlying medical conditions, it is not our role as Wikipedia editors to independently classify this as a "fatal dog attack."Onefireuser (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

I found the news report which does as you say clearly state that the reporters couldn't find out the official cause of death and had reason to believe that she might have died of something else. It seems the family apparently didn't want the reporters to know the cause of death, why not? It says the owner clearly loved the dog, and so wouldn't want the reporters to know if the dog killed the woman. It looks like it could be a blatant coverup. Chrisrus (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it could be a cover-up. Alternatively, the family may have wanted to grieve in peace and was not interested in being scrutinized by the media. Regardless of the reason, if we were to make a determination, we might be committing the Wikipedia Original Research sin. So Mable Harrison McCallister should be removed from the list unless we can find a reliable source stating she was the victim of a fatal dog attack.Onefireuser (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

The difference between WP:SYN and WP:SYNNOT is RRULE. Our onus is editorial judgement in this case. If a person with no preconcieved opinion about this topic (who doesn't have to actually exist) were to look at these RSes and see it as a clear fatal attack despite the words chosen, it should be included as a fatal attack.

For example, I vaguely recall the case of the man who loved pitbulls and who was killed by them in his enclosed kennel. His greiving son, not wanting to also lose the dogs, claimed that a puma must have broken into the kennel when the father was in there with the dogs and killed the father and then escaped the kennel and the pitbulls without leaving a mark on any of them or and the kennel door closed. He even said on camera that his father was a great defender of the breed and would not want any anti-pitbull activists to use his death against the breed, so please let's all agree it was a puma. And this was in a place with no pumas, even, as I recall. But of course, the reporter, who seemed like a symapthetic fellow, didn't challenge the story, and maybe passed it on as true in a subtle way. If I recall that correctly, and someone said we should not list it here on WP:SYN grounds, that would be an WP:RRULE violation and I would revert.

In this case, you may be right, maybe it's not obvious that the dog was a major contributing factor to her death, maybe not, let's leave that aside for the moment. The thing is, don't believe that, in all cases, if the RSes can't come out and say the obvious in so many words for reasons we can understand, then the attack cannot be included because it'd be WP:SYN.

Returning to this case, I am thinking about a footnote or caveat of some kind, but maybe we should just delete it, let me investigate a bit more and see if others have anything to say, expecially Astro. Chrisrus (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The case of the man found dead among 17 pit bulls in their kennel is the case of Rev. Reynolds, whom Onefireuser also thinks should not be listed as being killed by dogs (see above). Astro$01 (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The question I raised about Reynolds was not whether or not I think he was killed by his dogs. The question was whether we should be reporting an attack as a fatal dog attack when the news media reports officials saying "It's too early for me to say that the cause of death was being mauled by those dogs." (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322298/Elderly-pastor-mauled-death-dog-kennel-filled-17-pit-bulls.html) If we are going to include cases like this in the article, and not have a column in the data tables that describes this lack of information, we risk undermining our credibility. As Chrisrus has mentioned, we don't want readers to think "this entire list is bogus." We need to accurately represent what is written in the primary sources. Otherwise, this article represents the point of view of one the editor and seriously violates Wikipedia's NPOV standards. Onefireuser (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Basically, if we don't give prominence to the important details that could cast doubt on our assertions that these cases were all real fatal dog attacks, then we risk losing the readers' trust. They may become suspicious that even our well-documented, proven dog attacks are being misreported. So I think the best way to deal with all of these issues is to add another column to the data tables that talks about medical examiner determinations, etc. That way, the reader we know that these were true, proven dog attacks and not just the interpretations of Wiki editors.Onefireuser (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Ja'Marr Tiller breed identification

Why are the dogs that killed Ja'Marr Tiller identified as "Labrador Retriever - German Shepherd mix"? Pictures of the dogs were released: http://mountpleasant-sc.patch.com/articles/photos-dogs-involved-in-fatal-attack#photo-10108772. Notice the dog with the white blaze on the chest. Not a characteristic of either Labs or GSDs. There's really nothing in these images to suggest GSD heritage in these dogs. And I don't see anything that's specific to Labs either.Onefireuser (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Thanks for checking for signs of mis-identification in the WP:RSes, but the white on that dog's chest seems consistant with it being a Labrador mix. According to the article Labrador retriever, "occasionally Labradors will exhibit small amounts of white on their chest", with a citation that explains "...it appears that nearly every Labrador is a†a†, which is why the anomalous colors appear primarily on the muzzle, legs and chest." When you Google Images "white chest labrador", you get this Chrisrus (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The Tyler Jett case opened up a can of worms

In light of the new approach of verifying breed identification by looking at the pictures, I've revisited some of the cases from last year and am having a hard time buying some of the listed breeds. For example, why is Jeremiah Eskew-Shahan's killer listed as a Mastiff - Rhodesian Ridgeback mix? The pictures here show a dog that does not appear to have a ridge: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144032/Judge-spares-dog-mauled-1-year-old-death-campaign-animal-rights-activists-save-him.html It seems possible that the true mix might be a breed that is more common than the Rhodesian Ridgeback.Onefireuser (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Thanks for checking for worrisome signs that they might have gotten the breed wrong in this case, but this dog doesn't show clear signs of not being a Mastiff - Rhodesian Ridgeback mix. Not having a ridge would concern us if it were claimed to be a pure ridgeback or a ridgeback/ridgeback mix, but not of a ridgeback/non-ridgeback mix. In a ridgeback/non-ridgeback mix, you would expect maybe some puppies in the litter to have ridges, but not necessarily all. Now, if this dog had features of neither breed, like, if it were long-haired or some such, for example, it should worry us, but I see on this dog no features present in neither breed or which are not intermediate between the two breeds. Chrisrus (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

In reality, most mixed breed dogs will have short hair. This is because long hair is determined by recessive genes (http://www.doggenetics.co.uk/coats.html) and only dogs with two long-haired parents will themselves have long hair. Since most of the dogs on this Wiki page are mixed breed, they will almost all have short hair and that alone tells us little about their breed.Onefireuser (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Brayden McCollen

We have the dog listed as "Labrador-mix," but according to this article, Animal control officials said it was a pit bull: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8341432.

My apologies to the other editors for raising so many questions about multiple incidents, but it seems like a lot of these incidents need to be better researched!Onefireuser (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

To Onefireuser: I agree with you, however, the problem is, that none of us (or anyone else) is capable of identifying what breeds of dogs make up a mixed breed dog (See Voith, University of Florida and Scott and Fuller). Again, since Wiki has declared that the media is the real only "reliable" source for this page (which I totally disagree with), I think the best we can do is play along with those rules until something better can be introduced. I think just listing that the media identified the dog(s) as different breeds will make the point that there is some question as to the true breed(s) of dog. I suggest doing like we did with Tyler Jett, that is, naming both identifications given by the media, and not attempting to fight amongst ourselves as to which may be more "correct." Mauro1929 (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right! Some say pit bull; some say lab mix, so which is it? We have no images, so there's no help there. If you would, let's find a good citation for both and use each to cite a statement that it's been inconsistantly identifed and that tells the reader all about that inconsistancy. Also, be on the lookout for any evidence that one or the other is wrong, as we don't want to pass along information in the RSes that we can see must be wrong. We're supposed to remember to ask ourselves, ok, it's WP:RS, but how reliable is it about this particular fact? Not all RSes are equally reliable about everything equally. Chrisrus (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. We really need to add a paragraph to the article explaining how breed designations were made.Onefireuser (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Should Maryann Hanula be included in this list?

From the referenced sources, it sounds like she was the victim of a vicious dog attack, but that she luckily survived. She died 7 months later at age 73. Her obituary states that she "passed away peacefully." The referenced cited do not seem adequate to include her in this Wikipedia page. Although she was seriously bitten and her death may have been related to that. Do sources do not clearly support this being a "fatal attack." If we include it in this article, it seems like we are either doing original research or reporting our own personal point of view.Onefireuser (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

It does seem like a big synthesis issue - better to just remove it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There are no cited references that state Hanula died from the dog bite injuries she received 7 months prior. Whoever placed Hanula on this list made an assumption that cannot be substaniated. 10:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauro1929 (talk • contribs)

I have removed Hanula from this list until it can be referenced that her death was attributed to the injuries she received 7 months prior. Mauro1929 (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding future disputes and improving page's adherence to NPOV

This comment is partially in response to the current discussion about the John Reynolds incident, but I am giving it a new section because it addresses a larger issue about the article. Perhaps we could more easily reach consensus if we first addressed another aspect of the article: Most of the discussion on this talk page has revolved around breed. Most of that has been related to pit bulls, because most of the dogs on the page are identified as pit bulls. But even when another breed is identified (eg Golden vs NSDTR) there is lots of disagreement. Part of the reason there is so much disagreement about breed is because of the way it is presented in the article: Breed is the only characteristic of the dog given its own column. This should be changed. In addition to making it easier to resolve disputes, there are 2 important reasons to remove the Breed column and move that information to Circumstances:

1. Undue weight given to dog breed: Again, breed is the only characteristic of the dog given its own column. Essentially all expert organizations are in agreement that breed is not the most important characteristic of the dog to consider in aggressive incidents, yet we present it as if it is the ONLY characteristic to consider. A few examples of organizations that support this view are:

CDC

American Humane Association

ASPCA

Humane Society

2. Since very few of these cases involve purebred/pedigreed dogs, it is difficult/impossible for us to verify the dog's true ancestry. In most cases, the best we can hope to say is "The owner said the dog was Labrador-mix" or "To the Sheriff, the dog looked like a Rottweiller." Given the inherent difficulty of identifying breed by visual inspection, it does not seem like those statements would qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia. As Chrisrus has pointed out, the best we can hope to do in most cases is to say definitively what breed the dog is NOT.

If we move breed information to the Circumstances section, we will avoid these problems. Onefireuser (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Actually, this suggestion makes more sense than anything else I have read on this page. Lots of the circumstances (who owned the dog, whether the dog was loose or chained, etc.) we have much more factual information on then we do what breed of dog it was. So why are circumstances that are more factual listed as less relevant than a circumstance (i.e., breed) that we are almost always going to argue about and not ever be sure. Mauro1929 (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I was beginning to think that no one was going to notice my suggestion. I'm interested to hear what other people think.Onefireuser (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Does anyone else have any feedback or compelling reasons why "Breed" should be retained as the sole dog-specific circumstance that gets its own column? If the purpose of this article truly is to serve as a "List of fatal dog attacks," we can avoid the whole issue of Golden vs NSDTR and Pit Bull vs pit bull vs APBT vs Bulldog by folding that information into the Circumstances column.Onefireuser (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

I agree. This page is about people who have been killed by dogs, not about what breeds of dogs have killed people. I think that after the date, the victim's name is the most important detail that should be listed, along with their age. I also wonder why do we have breed here (of which we know little about) and yet we do not list location (i.e., city, state) ?? Also, I think we should try and be more accurate about the circumstances, not just the breed, but who owned the dog and if the dog was loose, chained, etc. Mauro1929 (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Should Robert Rochester be included in this list?

I've previously questioned whether Diane Jansen should be included in this list. Although Diane Jansen has still not been removed, if her case is to remain, should we add this nearly very similar case? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220280/Postman-suffers-fatal-cardiac-arrest-caused-dog-attack-carried-mail-rounds-week-before.html http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/19857677/posta Onefireuser (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Neither Diane Jansen or Robert Rochester should be on this list. There has been no declaration in either case that the cause of death was due to dog bites. This list should be much more precise then it currently is. There are names on here of people who died from other causes and dog bites were only a contributory factor and other cases were dog bites were the direct cause of death. There are two completely different scenarios and should not be listed together as "fatal dog attacks." Mauro1929 (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Alapaha Blue-Blood Bulldog?

http://www.alapahabluebloodbulldogs.org/index.php

• 

It is interesting that some have questioned the identification of the media's breed attribution of Alapaha Blue Blood bulldogs, yet seem to have no problem accepting a "breed" identification of "pit bull mix." Neither is really a breed per se. Neither can be confirmed to be correct, as the media is decidedly conflicted on what to identify these dogs as. Insisting on picking one or the other may demonstrate a POV. If the media cannot decide what it is, and the media is Wiki's reference, then it should stated there is a conflict among Wiki sources. Mauro1929 (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

User Maxgold: Inappropiate accusation on Wiki page:

'Attacked by two loose Pit Bull mix dogs. The boy died 5 days later. The Owner just a week prior had received a citation after his two Pitbulls were at large. The owner of the two Pitbulls is currently on Manslaughter charges. Photos of the offending dogs have been released that clearly show the dogs were Pitbull Mixes, and not Bulldogs as falsely reported by some media outlets (It isn't uncommon for Pitbull advocates to deliberately misidentify a pitbull as another breed in an attempt to protect the Pitbull Breed. Some sources claim the dogs are Alapaha Blue-Blood Bulldog, a breed not recognised by the UKC or the AKC. Alapaha Blue-Blood Bulldog is considered a cross between the American Pitbull Terrier & either the Black Mouth Cur or Catahoula Leopard Dog and further back the Mountain Bulldog, Old Southern White and Old Country (Big) Bulldog)[311"

Maxgold has no authority to choose which media article he likes best and make an independent, personal determination of which "breed" is correct. And the accusation about "pit bull advocates" does NOT belong on a Wiki page. Mauro1929 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Strange that Maxgold claims that the Alapaha Blue-blood Bulldog is "not a breed recognized by the UKC or AKC ... and is a "cross." Well, that exact same agrument applies to the term "pit bull mix," which Maxgold insists on using. Mauro1929 (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Maxgold: If I don't have the authority to choose which media article to cite, then nor does anyone, the media has clearly posted many reports citing the dogs were Pitbull mixes, their is photographic evidence that Animal Control cited these dogs and labelled them Pitbulls. Their is photographic image that indicates the dogs look strikingly similar to pure breed Pitbulls. And the Alapaha Blue-blood Bulldog is not a recognised breed by either the UKC or the AKC, it is a rare cross breed of dog between a American Pitbull and various forms of Bulldog. which makes it a Pit Bull Mix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxgold20 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I was NOT choosing between the two media identification, nor should you. There were just as many media articles calling the dogs bulldogs and/or Alapaha blue bulldogs, myself and another user were merely stating that the dogs were identified as two different types of dogs (see my first post in this section). The orginial post stated there were media conflicts about the type of dog and bulldog and pit bull mix were BOTH listed in the orginial entry. Please tell me your credentials in being able to decide which media source is accurate. Your personal and subject visual identification from a poor quality photograph is NOT acceptable. The owner is cited as calling them bulldogs. And you claiming that a bulldog is a pit bull does not make it so. Bulldogs are NOT pit bulls, please check the AKC and UKC breed descriptions for the AmBull and English Bulldog.

Your refusual to acknowledge there is a conflict by deleting posts that offer both descriptions of the dogs and repeatedly inserting your choice shows a clear agenda here. Mauro1929 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The editors of this page have repeatedly stated that the media is a verifiable source for information,(which I do not agree with, but this has been decided). Since this is the source of information accepted here, an individual poster does not have the authority to decide which media articles are correct and which are wrong, according to their personal, subjective, interpretation. Wiki has stated the media is a verifiable source, so if one "verifiable" source says the dog is a bulldog and one "verifiable" source says the dog is a "pit bull mix" then both "verifiable" sources should be cited. (And such is the problem with media sources). Mauro1929 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

They are not bulldogs. Don't take it from me, check it yourself:

There are two pictures of the dogs in this report: http://www.wmbb.com/story/21913672/manslaughter-charge-filed-against-callaway-dog-owner

Please pause the video at 01:28 and 01:31 to see the dogs. See the articles Cephalic index in cats and dogs, and especially the article Brachycephalic animals, Subsection "animals". See that bulldogs are brachycephalic, but American Pit Bull Terriers are Mesaticephalic, like American Pit Bull Terriers.

Look at the pictures again. These two dogs are not brachycephalic. If you are not brachycephalic, you are not a bulldog. It's what being a bulldog is all about. That and the underbite and the sagging skin under the jaw. Those dogs may not have been pure pitbulls, as anyone can see, they are obviously not bulldogs. It is our responsiblity to make the editorial judgement here based on the WP:RRULE, everyone should just be reasonable, we are not "transcription monkeys", we take into account what plain to see. Not all RSes call them bulldogs anyway, so this allows us to go with the citation that is not blatantly wrong. Chrisrus (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This is NOT about personal identifications of poor quality photos in the media. Again, the media is Wiki's source for information on these cases, not personal interpretation. There are over 50 articles printed about this case. While some articles do report the dog to be a pit bull mix, more report the dogs as "bulldogs." Therefore, to insist Wiki use the identification of "pit bull mix" shows a clear agenda. Wiki should state that their sources for breed identification are conflicted, and list both breed identifications. Chrisrus personal evaluation of a photo is NOT a recognized Wiki source for breed identification. And anyone who has owned Boxers or Bulldogs (and does not need the Internet as a source) knows full well that some dogs are very brachycephalic, while other hardly show a trace, especially if the dog is not purebreed or show quality (another reason why visual breed identification is so tricky). Mauro1929 (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, do we really want to start looking at all the photos dogs involved in fatal attacks and then start having discussions among posters what they BELIEVE to be the correct breed. This indeed could become a horror show as we could probably do this for dozens and dozens of the cases listed on this page and be mired in arguments for years. Allowing individual posters to make decisions on breed is a very slippery slope that I am sure Wiki does not want to moderate. I truly don't understand the absolute insistence by Chrisrus and Maxgold to choose one breed identification over the other. Mauro1929 (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No Wikipedian should ever pass along information from the RSes into an article any information that is obviously, knowably wrong. See the discussion Talk:Will.i.am#Correction_of_naming_error, for example. And aren't you also insisting we choose one breed identification over another? Chrisrus (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it is abundantly clear, in all my posts, that I am NOT choosing one breed over the other. The fact that you can say that is truly astounding. Mauro1929 (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so you won't mind if we don't call them bulldogs; as you don't care which of the RS IDs we use you will not insist we call them bulldogs. Because all bulldogs are brachycephalic and have the jowls and such and these dogs do not. Chrisrus (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand your post above, it seems you still do not comprehend that I believe both "breeds" should be listed with the explanation of the conflict. Again, all bulldogs are not phenotypically brachycephalic, especially some of the AmBulls that are not show quality, and especially if they are not purebreeds. Additionally, you are not qualified to make a breed identification on a poor (or any) quality photograph. Please refer to Scott and Fuller (Genetics and the social behavior of dogs), Dr. Victoria Voith's work and the University of Florida's study on breed identification (http://www.isfoundation.com/news/creatures/identifying-mixed-breed-dogs-true-genetic-makeup-it-possible). These studies all found that even canine professionals could not agree on breed identification among themselves, nor were they able to accurately identify breeds as compared to DNA. I hardly believe that a Wiki user has this capabilty, especially one who does not understand that many Boxers, Presa Canarios, and Amerian bulldogs are NOT brachycephalic despite this trait being a breed standard. (However it is rare to find an English bulldog that is not brachycephalic). Mauro1929 (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This Talk thread has become surreal. Chrisrus, you are making the points that the so-called "pit bull advocates" usually make! I thought that the consensus on this page was to report the breed identification made by the media. It is impossible for us, as Wikipedia editors, to make an independent assessment of breed based on one or two grainy photos. Anyone who knows anything about dog breeds can tell you that. The most we could hope to do is to say that the breed assessment made by the media might be wrong. If we want to go that way, fine. However, it would mean that we would have to write "mixed breed" or "undetermined" for almost every single incident. That is fine with me. We would at least be telling the truth. In fact, I think it would be more in keeping with the Wikipedia philosophy and it would avoid much of the appearance of non-neutral POV issue on this page. Alternatively, we can continue our practice of simply reporting what the news says. What we cannot do is try to make our own identification, because we will often be wrong. Yes, I've looked at that video. If we don't want to use the media's breed identification, would it be fair to call the first dog a border-collie mix? Take a look at this REGISTERED border collie: http://www.dogsblog.com/charlie-38/. He certainly looks a lot like our culprit. Should we call the second dog an American Mastiff. Certainly looks a lot like this dog that comes straight from a breeder: http://www.deepwoodmastiffs.com/Diesel.htm. Or how about a Cane Corso: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CaneCorso_(7).jpg. The bottom line is, these dogs all look very similar because they are all DOGS. If you have a medium or large dog with short hair, it's going to look a lot like a lot of different breeds. And guess what, the dog's appearance is irrelevant anyway. It's the dog's behavior that we should be worried about. Onefireuser (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

I'll quickly admit the following.

We all agree that we can't say for sure, based on solely the images of the dogs we see if we search Google Images for "Tyler Jet," in parentheses; that we definately say based on that evidence alone what exact kind of dogs they are. Your links do a good job of detailing just how difficult it can be to identify mixed breed dogs.

The problem is, that's not what I am saying. I'm saying that we can, on the other hand, confidently say that they weren't purebred Samoyeds, Bassets, Scottish Deerhounds, Great Danes, Chihuahuas, or Springer Spaniels. Please take a moment and think of all the things we could say based on these pictures that the dogs were not. You keep talking about not being able to say for sure what they are. Please start thinking about the things we can say they were not.

In light of these images, for us to give equal weight to the statement the one was a [Alapaha Blue-Blood Bulldogs] defies WP:RRULE in the face of these images, which show mesaticephalic skulls. While bulldogs do vary, as you rightly pointed out, in the extent to which they are bulldogs do vary by the extent to which they are brachycephalic, absolutely all bulldogs are always markedly brachycephalic compared to mesaticephalic dogs. Not only that, but there are many other things that we can see among bulldogs that are not present in these two dogs. And the claim is not only that the one is specifically a pure bulldog, not only that it is specifically a purebred American bulldog, but this joker has the nerve to try to pass his dogs off as even more specifically the specific variety of American Bulldog known as an "Alapaha Blue-Blood" variety of the already pure breed American Bulldog! It beyond the power of belief in the light of these dogs skulls compared to that of any pureblood bulldog you can ever point to. To pass this blatant mis-identification in a few of these RSes on to the reader is being a "transcription monkey" as Jimbo Wales puts it - acting dogmatically as if we had no sense(s). At the vary least the claim must be couched in proper context so the reader can see it for what it is.

If what you are saying were true, we would, despite these images, have to pass on the claim that they were toy poodles or any other such impossible thing. Chrisrus (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I agree with your statement that we can be fairly confident that these dogs were not Poodle mixes or Samoyeds. And I agree with you that neither of these dogs appear to be a purebreed bulldog (or any purebreed dog). So how do we resolve this? Personally, I don't believe these dogs are (purebreed) bulldogs any more than I believe they are (purebred) pit bulls. And the Alapaha blue blood bulldog only makes things more confusing. But, we only have the media's identifications to work with, which leaves us in a quandry. This is why I was advocating for both "breeds" to be listed, as it shows that the media is not always an accurate source of information, especially when it comes to identifying dog breeds. I am certainly open to suggestions on how to resolve this. I personally agree with you that we should question the media, but unfortunately Wiki has made it very clear that the media is pretty much the only source they consider "verifiable" for this page; and that is a shame. Mauro1929 (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I think we are on the same page here. The only thing we can confidently say about those dogs is what they are not. I agree with you that it is unlikely that they are purebred American Bulldogs. I think the conflict might come in how we are handling this incident vs other incidents on the page.

For most of the other incidents on the page, we have listed a breed, despite the fact that--in the absence of pedigree papers--it is essentially impossible to know the breed of a dog. Visual identification is not reliable and not even genetic testing is reliable. One can look at a 100 lb dog with a short brindle coat and say it is NOT a toy poodle. One can look at a 10 pound fluffy dog and say it is NOT an American Pit Bull Terrier. But it is impossible to look at an average American mutt and say for sure that it is a American Pit Bull Terrier, Rottweiler, or German Shepherd. It's even impossible to say that a mutt is definitively a mix of one of these breeds.

This is the fundamental problem with this entire Wikipedia article. For most of the dogs involved, we will never know their true ancestry. Onefireuser (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

We can confidently call them pit bull-type dogs, but that's about all. It's about the best we can do. The other appellations found in the RSes should be used only with appropriately lesser amount of confidence. I've got an idea as to how to re-write the comments in a compromise way that might sastify all involved that we're not overly "synthesizing". Tomorrow, I'll look it over and give it a think and edit it or soon and see how you respond. I don't think I'll have to do much to it, you might be surprised. Chrisrus (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. We might be able to call them pit-bull type. We would just need to acknowledge that we are using a broad sense of the term. I believe the narrow sense of the term means purebred specimens of APBT, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and crosses of these three breeds. Wikipedia's article "Pit Bull" talks about this.

We would be using a broad sense that sounds to me like it includes any dog that looks vaguely like a pit bull: short coat, medium size, muscular. This would include not only pit bull mixes, but also boxers, many bulldog mixes, mastiffs, many Labrador mixes, viszlas, short-haired border collies, cane corsos, presa canarios, Rhodesian ridgebacks, dogo argentinos, Rotties, catahoulas. We would be referring to dogs that don't necessarily share any ancestry with the proper Pit Bull type breeds. Perhaps this would actually be good because it would be in keeping with the colloquial use of the term "pit bull." I've frequently heard people referring to boxers and bulldogs as "pit bulls."

If this is the route we want to take, it could work. We'll just need to add a paragraph to the article that explains what we mean by "pit bull type" dogs.Onefireuser (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Onefireuser: I hope your above post was an attempt at humor. Your proposal to lump together very distinct breeds all into one group is mind numbing. For sanity's sake, I will assume your post above was a joke. Mauro1929 (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't exactly a joke. Reductio ad absurdum maybe? The general trend on this page has been to list the "breed" that the media reports. That means we're almost certainly applying the label "pit bull", "pit bull type", and "pit bull mix" to dogs that share zero genetic heritage with one of the actual 3 breeds considered Pit Bulls. I think the most reasonable approach would be to not use ANY of the media designations of breed unless they give actual evidence, i.e. pedigree. However, if we want to continue the trend of just looking at a dog and saying "pit bull," then we might as well call every dog a "pit bull" and just add a paragraph explaining that it's a meaningless moniker.Onefireuser (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

OK. A few years ago I may have recognized the satire here, but I've seen so many unreasonable people when it comes to dogs and breed ID, that I now believe almost anything is possible. But, you are so right about the media identifying dogs (of any breed) without providing any evidence or, just as bad, different medias reporting different breeds for the same dog! I look at the intense posting about the Golden Retriever / Duck Trolling dog above and think that if that was done for every "pit bull" identification, this page would be longer than most phone books. Mauro1929 (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Calling a dog a spaniel or a retriever or a pit-bull type or a spitz or a bulldog breed any other general type of dog above the level of specific breed is not "meaningless"! If we know what kind of dog it was, why we shoudn't we say so? Even if we can't name the specific breed, if a type is the best we can do we should always do the best we can. We call some sled dogs, for example, how is that "meaningless"? Talk sense if you want to be heard; I'm editing the notation soon to tell the people something coherent about what we can confidently state about kind of dogs killed Tyler Jett. This bit about "pit bull-type" being "meaningless" is not helping. Talk about this, if you would, instead; what's the point in saying one was brindle? I'm going to edit out the brindle bit unless someone explains why not. Chrisrus (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with you editing out "brindle", as a matter of fact I agree. Mauro1929 (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I also have no problem with you editing out brindle. It doesn't tell us anything. And I also agree with you that saying "pit bull type" is not inherently meaningless. We just need to decide what it means. We know that retriever means a dog whose ancestors were bred to retrieve. We know that spitz means a dog with a specific, narrowly defined look.

What do we mean by "pit bull type"? To many people that might mean a dog whose ancestors were bred at some point in time to fight other dogs. Although a lab-border collie mix looks a lot like a "pit bull," do we want to call a lab-border collie mix a pit bull? All I was saying was that if we broaden "pit bull" to include that type of dog, it might not mean much anymore.

So we can certainly refer to types of dogs. We just need to decide what we mean--and clearly spell it out for the reader--when we say "pit bull type."

Perhaps a more accurate designation would be "bully breed"-mix. "Pit bull"-type dogs are a subset of bully breed dogs. Bully breeds include boxers, all the bulldogs, Boston terriers, and pit bulls. To many people who don't know much about dogs, all bully breeds are "pit bulls." But that's just wrong.Onefireuser (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Actually, that's not bad Onefireuser. "Bully breed" is a much better term, than "pit bull type." For example, the disagreement about whether a dog is a bulldog or a pit bull mix would be solved by calling the dog a "bully breed." Is not the perfect or right answer, but then there really is no perfect or right answer. This might be the least flawed description available. Mauro1929 (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we make any mention of the fact that the first dog could be a border collie mix? Since we're using the picture as the main source of information here (in this case we're deciding to disregard the media's claim that the dog is an American Bulldog), it seems like the evidence in favor of him being a border collie mix is on par with the evidence for him being a bully breed mix.Onefireuser (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

MaxGold: I find it amazing that Mauro1929 is claiming to be worried about breed misidentification which is outright lies. What Mauro1929 is worried about is Pitbulls being cited for attacks causing fatalities. He takes issue with the term Pitbull Mix being used, but has no problem slandering the bulldog breed. Their is photographic evidence that clearly show Animal Control considered these dogs Pitbulls (it is absurd to think that Animal Control can not tell the difference between a Pitbull and a Bulldog). The only source for the Bulldog moniker is from the owner himself. And the term 'Bulldog' is a term used by 'DOGMEN" for their Pitbulls. The general public don't know these type of facts. People who fight dogs refer to their Pitbull canine gladiators as "100% Bulldogs". It is obvious that Mauro1929 is trying to protect the breed and not so much worried about the transmission of reliable information. And the claim that their is rampant misidentification is ridiculous, it really does defy logic. Essentially the pitbull apologists want you to believe that breeds don't exist and that telling one dog from another is impossible. This issue has been addressed legally in the Court system and The Court concluded that the definitions of a Pit Bull Terrier in this Ordinance are not unconstitutionally vague. An ordinary person could easily refer to a dictionary, a dog buyer's guide or any dog book for guidance and instruction; also, the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club have set forth standards for Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers to help determine whether a dog is described by any one of them. While it may be true that some definitions contain descriptions which lack "mathematical certainty," such precision and definiteness is not essential to constitutionality. Mauro1929 is making accusation of Bias when it is perfectly clear the bias in his agenda. I am not making claims that aren't printed in the media, I have dedicated the last few years of my life to this issue and have learned the extreme lengths that Pitbull advocates go to to misinform the public. One of the tricks they use is to play the misidentification card, as if they care about what breed is involved in attacks. This looks genuine, but in fact what their agenda is, is to make sure that Pitbulls don't get blamed for an attack, and they will use any means possible to avoid blame being attributed to Pitbulls. They don't so much care what breed gets blamed for the attack, just so long as it isn't the Pitbull breed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxgold20 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)  Done ?? Chrisrus (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Maxgold, you--like anyone--are entitled to your opinions. Please keep in mind, however, the Five Pillars of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it is written from a neutral point of view. Also, while anyone is free to edit the encyclopedia and there are no firm rules, editors should interact with each other in a civil manner. This is not the place for personal attacks. While we are happy to have you contributing to the page, if you have strong personal points of view about people (eg another Wikipedia editor) or groups of people (people whose dogs are pit bulls) that you wish to make known, please do so in a different forum.Onefireuser (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

That is quite a rant Maxgold, full of accusations that show a clear agenda on your part. We we discussing this topic intelligently and fairly, about the reliability of different media sources and you continuely disrupt it by making changes and ridiculous accusations. I have done nothing but adhere to Wiki's rules of using the media as a source. You have never tried to discuss this with other Wiki editors except to delete and write accusatory posts both on this page on the Wiki page itself. Seriously, who is the pit bull anti-advocate here? Mauro1929 (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I for one can assure you that if dogs are clearly misidentified as pit bulls I would do everything I could to correct the situation. As you know, I don't want to pass along the fact that they've been called bulldogs, but have included it, while giving it it's due weight. Please be satisfied with this compromise. Neither you nor he nor I is getting everything we want. Chrisrus (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus, you are completely wrong in your comment on the wiki page that because a dog lacks facial "wrinkles" it cannot be a bulldog. Please research American bulldogs more carefully and look at their faces. You may not believe it, but I owned a Amercian bulldog mix and he did NOT have any facial wrinkles or a shortened muzzle (but he did have an underbite). This may also help you understand that I am not a pit bull "advocate" trying to dump on bulldogs. I can live with your change but not with the comment in article of your own personal assessment of what a bulldog or bulldog mix should like look. If we agree to take that out, I will compromise with the rest. Mauro1929 (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus - exactly how I would have edited it - a fair compromise. Mauro1929 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have resulted in a slightly new policy about how to report dog breeds. It seems like the old policy was summarized here:

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)

If the new policy is indeed different, we may want to revisit all of the old incidents to make sure the breed identification follows the newer policy set down in this discussion about the "Alapaha Blue-Blood Bulldog."Onefireuser (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

From the photos shown in the news article (http://www.wmbb.com/story/21913672/manslaughter-charge-filed-against-callaway-dog-owner) it is impossible to say if the dogs have longer skulls than the average American Bulldog.

See examples of American Bulldogs:

http://www.bulldogbreeds.com/americanbulldog.html

http://www.sfgate.com/magazine/article/The-Anti-Cesar-Millan-Ian-Dunbar-s-been-2550043.php

"standard type American Bulldog": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:American_bulldog.jpg

The photos in the news article are not inconsistent with these examples of American Bulldogs. If the photos are consistent with the possibility of these dogs being American Bulldogs AND the media also says they are American Bulldogs, why would we on Wikipedia claim that they are Pit Bulls?Onefireuser (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

• File:Are profiles necessary to tell a pitbull from a bulldog?
• 
  Bulldogs are brachycephalic
• 
  Pit bulls are mesaticephalic

The photos of those two dogs are clear enough for anyone without an agenda to tell they are not bulldogs. Chrisrus (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The picture you provided is of a Brazilian Bulldog (Campeiro). Yes, you can see from the news pictures that the dog involved was probably not a Brazilian Bulldog. But did you look at the pictures I linked for American Bulldogs? I've always had a hard time telling apart an American Bulldog and a pit bull and I don't think that it's possible to tell them apart from the pictures the media provided.

Here are a couple more examples of American Bulldogs:

• 
  This is an American Bulldog from the Wiki page on American Bulldogs
• 
  Another dog from the same page

That said, we don't need to agree on this. I think you did a great job with your most recent edit. You mentioned that there are pictures available. People who are interested can take a look themselves.

PS: you may want to update the reference for the photos. It used to show at what time point in the video one could see the pictures, but that doesn't seem to be showing up anymore.Onefireuser (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

PPS: I don't appreciate you insinuating that I have an agenda and I'm not sure what you think that agenda is. I believe in Wikipedia and I don't think we should be making false statements about how to tell apart Pit Bulls and American Bulldogs. Please keep the discussion civil.Onefireuser (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Chrisrus, I notice that you edited the talk pages for those two photos to say that they are not actual American Bulldogs. I'm not an expert on identifying dog breeds, but I think you might be mistaken. From what I understand, the "Scott type" American Bulldog has that appearance. If you're interested, take a look at these pictures from breeders. The breeders might be lying, but if that's the case, I don't know where we can look for definitive info:

http://www.libbertykennels.com/dogs.htm

http://howardsamericanbulldogs.com/pages/jake.php

http://www.asecondwindfarm.com/scarlett.htm

Onefireuser (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Come on Chrisrus, a photo of a Bulldog Campeiro? Nobody believes the dogs involved in this case were purebred bulldogs (of any kind) and if they had any bulldog in them at all, it was probably American Bulldog or Alapaha blue blood (whatever that is), which are entirely different looking dogs than the picture you have posted. I thought we were good with this? I thought we had come to an agreement to just cite what the media printed, with just a general disclaimer statement about the accuracy. Mauro1929 (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Two separate points:

First, the photo I chose above was the most square-on, front view, no profile, bulldog photo I could find, that's all. It just shows, please agree, that you don't need a profile to tell if a dog has a bulldog skull or if it's mesaticephalic; it proves non-profile photos can be good enough, so you shouldn't say that unless an image is a profile, we can't see if it clearly is or isn't a bulldog, because at least sometimes, a frontal image is enough to see it's a bulldog skull.

But you are right, the text of some of the RSes is where we got the info that they are pitbulls, not the photos. The photos don't contradict the RSes that say that they are pitbuls, but the photos do contradict the RSes that say they are purebred bulldog breed dogs.

Second, I have another photo, new to me, here: http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/Benefit-Cookout-For-Dog-Attack-Victim-201519091.html at 00:27 in the video, which is a profile. You will see the non-brindle dog, the one reported in some RSes as a pure-bred American Alapaha Blue-Blood Bulldog. The photo shows enough of the profile of that dog to demonstrate that is a mesaticephalic dog, and therefore possibly a pit bull, as some RSes say, but not possibly a purebred Alapaha Blue-Blood American Bulldog, because no one claims that an Alapaha Blue-Blood is mesaticephalic, even relatively so for a bulldog. These photos contradict one of the RSes, but not the other. Whenever photos contradict one RS but not another, we should go with the one the photos agree with, only, and not mention the other. Chrisrus (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we are mostly in agreement here. In response, here are a couple thoughts: First, from your comments above, it seems that we can agree that when it comes to breed identification, our RSes aren't as R as we'd like them to be. Second, my thoughts about how this dog was identified were reflecting what I thought was the policy on this page as set down by you:

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)

If that is no longer the policy, that is also fine with me. I agree with you that the media does a poor job of identifying breed.

As far as the American Alapaha Blue-Blood Bulldog goes, are you referring to the new photo that cuts off the front of the dog's head? Despite the fact that the head is cut halfway out of the picture, the dog in that photo looks even LESS like a APBT or American Staffordshire than the previous photos did. It seems pretty clear from these pictures, and from the media's reporting, that this dog is a MUTT. To say that it is a pedigree bulldog is absurd and to say that it is a purebred American Pit Bull Terrier is also absurd. To say that, because of the picture, it is "possibly" a pit bull is not useful for Wikipedia. Almost any mutt is "possibly" a pit bull. All those dogs are also likely to contain Labrador retriever. The most appropriate thing to do in the case of this dog would be to report it as "unknown" or "mixed breed." If we are now re-defining "pit bull" to mean "any medium or large mutt with a muscular or semi-muscular build and short hair that cannot be clearly identified as another breed," then we need to clearly state that that is our policy. Onefireuser (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

See also:

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. Chrisrus (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Since we no longer seem to be following this policy, it is important that editors go back and review previous entries to make sure that we have consistency in how breed is covered for each incident.Onefireuser (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

If a source says a dog was a cocker spaniel, we should just say what the source says, unless there is something blatantly wrong with it. For example, if there were a RS picture of an obvious beagle labeled "cocker spaniel" we would have to figure out what to do so as not to pass along a blatant mistake as if we had no sense(s). If the article said something crazy like the man was killed by cat bites inside his cage of 17 pet pumas, but that the grieving son's theory could not be ruled out that a roving pack of pit bulls must have snuck into the puma cage and killed the man and escaped leaving no trace, and the son explained that the pumas couldn't have killed him because they loved him and ate ice cream off his spoon, then we should give no serious weight to that theory if we mention it at all. The rules are in place for a reason, to get the article right. Where the reason is not present or served by the rule, it should not be applied. The only rule is that everyone should always be reasonable and do what we have to do in order to get the information right. Chrisrus (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

So I am interpreting this to mean that we are in agreement that the dog in the Tyler Jett case should be labelled "mixed breed": The media cannot agree on a breed. Two of the breeds that they have suggested are not actually breeds: "pit bull" and "brindle bulldog." And the pictures they have produced show what appears to be a mixed breed dog.Onefireuser (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Again, what I take away from a holistic view of the sources is that they are clearly not purebred bulldog breeds; while you seem to go further and state that they also are also visibly not pit bulls, either. I disagree. Darn I really thought that upon seeing that profile pic you were going to have to agree that of the two, pit bull was the clear choice. While they could be mixed breeds, even mixed with bulldog or pit bull, that's stickier because we wouldn't be quoting any RS. So here we are. What's next? Chrisrus (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you consider that "going further." I thought we were agreeing that these were mixed breed dogs and an attempt to call them American Bulldogs, American Pit Bull Terriers, or American Staffordshire Terriers would be stepping beyond what is acceptable on Wikipedia because there is no RS to support that statement.Onefireuser (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

I agree that going by just the pictures, they could easily be mixed breeds. But there is also the text. We are looking at the pictures for help in a case where the dogs are being called two different things, and also because we should always check the pictures for blatant errors in the text. The pictures don't show plausible bulldog breeds, but they do show plausible pit bulls. If the pictures are consistent with one thing the RSes call them but not the other thing, we should call them the thing that the RSes call them which is consistent with the pictures. Chrisrus (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Anastasia Bingham

Why is the dog that killed Anastasia Bingham not being described the same way the only citation that we are using which actually works identifies them? Chrisrus (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I updated the incident to say "Pit Bull".Onefireuser (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

 Done

Should John Reynolds Sr be included on this list?

The referenced article does not say that John Reynolds was killed by his dogs. Another article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322298/Elderly-pastor-mauled-death-dog-kennel-filled-17-pit-bulls.html) states:

It's too early for me to say that the cause of death was being mauled by those dogs.

Does anyone have a reference where the cause of death was determined to be dog attack? The original referenced article certainly implies that that was a likely cause, but it stops well short of saying that this was a "fatal attack." If we cannot find another article to show that this was a fatal dog attack, it seems highly inappropriate for us, as Wikipedia editors, to be making that judgement call.Onefireuser (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Agree that this should be removed from list. The article below states very clearly that none of the dogs from Mr. Reynolds property were siezed. Callaway County authorities did not remove the dogs because there was no evidence that demonstrated these dogs were involved in the death of Mr. Reynolds. http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=222459&catid=3 Mauro1929 (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Mauro, I agree. Although the circumstances makes it sound like likely that pit bull dogs were responsible, it does not seem certain enough to be included in an encyclopedia. If the media, the sheriff's department, and the Humane Society are all unsure of the cause of death, it seems completely un-Wikipedia of us to include this case. Although the headline "Man dead near 17 pit bulls" sounds like a closed case, it also sounds like there might potentially be more to the story. I'm not saying that the pit bulls were not responsible, but I am saying that we don't have proper sources to say in an encyclopedia that they were responsible. There are enough items in the news article to raise the possibility that something else happened. For example: "with the exception of one dog who was wounded, showed few signs of an attack given the severity of Rev. Reynolds' injuries." If the dogs were responsible, why didn't they have blood on them? If they dogs were responsible, why was one of them injured? Did John Reynolds injure the dog while he was trying to defend himself? The article also says "The official report on Rev. Reynolds' death only says his injuries were consistent with an animal attack." While it seems extremely unlikely that a mountain lion was involved, "the Sheriff says deputies have taken reports on, and had sightings of, mountain lions in Callaway County." That assertion is backed up by this website: http://mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/wildlife-reporting/mountain-lion-reports/confirmed-mountain-lion-reports. Another article (http://www.komu.com/news/willamsburg-pastor-found-dead-in-pen-of-pitbulls/), however, says "The Missouri Department of Conservation said Reynolds' bite wounds do not match a mountain lions bite." That same second article also says "Dogs and other animals commonly roam the area according to residents," which would be consistent that other roaming dogs were involved in the attack. The bottom is this: of course it seems likely that the pit bulls were involved in the attack. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! We can't go about making assertions that are not supported by the media, the sheriff's department, or Missouri Humane Society that investigated the case. It's possible that their investigations determined that the pit bulls were responsible, but we need to find a source that states that. Otherwise, we're spreading rumors and we should be writing on a blog instead of an encyclopedia. Onefireuser (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322298/Elderly-pastor-mauled-death-dog-kennel-filled-17-pit-bulls.html Chrisrus (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this reference. The Sheriff's Department is quoted:

I know what the scene was like. It has the appearance of that. But when you step back, take your time and do a thorough investigation, sometimes things aren't exactly the way they appear.

This is pretty clear. That quote, taken together with the policy that "Wikipedia includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true," it seems we need to remove the John Reynolds incident until someone can find out what were the results of the Callaway County Sheriff's Department investigation or the Missouri Humane Society investigation.Onefireuser (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

All we know we get from the sources. We know J.R., sr. was found mauled to death inside his pitbull pen of seventeen pitbulls. We know that J.R., jr. speculates that some other animals did it; pumas or stray dogs, explaining that his father wouldn’t have wanted his death to become fodder for anti-pittbull people. This cannot be considered anything but a fringe theory at best, and if we could be honest with each other transparently false.

Likewise with Lt. Osborne’s theory. Officer Osborne thinks he could have died from something else, maybe a heart attack or some such, saying it’s not clear what happened. But we know that many of the bites occurred while he was alive, others after his death, so this is makes no sense. We only pass on the reasonable theories from the WP:RSes, not wacko stuff. We should pass on the theory to the readers that he was killed by his pitbulls and ignore the other theories that make no sense, because we are not transcription monkeys.

I will revert any deletion of this item from the list. If you would like to include in the comments the puma and stray dog theories, I will add the facts and circumstances found in the sources so that the reader will give them no undue weight. But I urge that you don’t do that because Wikipedia should not pass on blatant bullshit. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Chrisrus (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering the fact that four-letter profanities have entered into the discussion, it may be best to request a Third Party Opinion.

Also, I am not sure why you are dismissing the Sheriff's statements with a profanity. Generally the best information we have to go on in any of these cases is statements from law enforcement. Why are we cherry picking which law enforcement statements we wish to believe?Onefireuser (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

A compromise short of requesting a third party opinion, could be to change the breed identification to "unknown" because it is unknown. And then to explain in the circumstances section that he was found dead with 6 adult dogs and 11 puppies, and mention that the Sheriff's department was conducting an investigation to determine if the attackers were the dogs that lived there or other strays. This should satisfy everyone because it keeps the incident on the list but it refrains from passing on information that is not verifiable.Onefireuser (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

This has nothing to do with the type of dog in question. There is no question that he kept a pack of six adult and eleven puppy pitbulls. The question is whether the pitbulls killed him or whether he died some other way. If we keep it, the "breed" (should be changed to "breed or type"?) will be pitbull, not "unknown". You are asking to delete the item entirely, or maybe adding notes to the effect that this event might not belong on the list at all. You might have success in doing this for other items mentioned here, but not in this case, because the theory that stray dogs or a puma slipped in and killed him among the pack of pitbulls and escaped - merit no consideration in whether to remove this item from the list because to do so would be a WP:UCS violation. Chrisrus (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Two simple facts remain: 1. It was determined that Reynold's death was attributed to dog bites, 2. Authorities NEVER siezed any of Reynold's dogs, (not before the autopsy or after). This is unheard of in any case where a dog is believed or determined to be involved in a fatality. This a clear sign that authorities either could not prove, or did not believe that Reyonold's dogs were involved. We can then only conclude that the dogs that killed Mr. Reynolds were "unknown." Mauro1929 (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that we can't list these dogs as pit bulls because of the stray dog theory. But, given a holistic view of the available WP:RSes, the stray dog theory is far too preposterous to consider, for many obvious reasons, but basically, because there is just no way random stray dogs got into his pit bull kennel, killed him, continued to maul him after he was dead, inside his kennel full of a dozen pit bulls, and then escaped. I accept John Jr.'s reasons for offering the theory, about not wanting it to be known that his pit bulls killed him, and I appreciate the awkward position of the reporter and the policeman; not challenging him on the theory, at least publically (Who could have? Not me!); nor conducting any further investigation into the tragic death of a man who by all accounts seems to have been a great guy and a pillar of the community who loved pit bulls; and the officer's explanation that there is no crime when your own dogs kill you, because a dog can't commit a crime, and so on and so forth, BUT it's simply impossible to accept the stray dog theory as a reasonable possibility. Therefore, the stray dog "possibility" merits no consideration when deciding to whether to list these dogs as "pit bulls," "stray dogs" or "unknown dogs". Therefore, I am changing it back, citing WP:UCS, and urging all to please leave it that way. Chrisrus (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Chrisrus, but I am very sure of only one thing: There is NO case where a person has been killed by a dog and authorities did not sieze the dog(s) they believed to be involved. I have no clue what dog(s) killed Mr. Reynolds, but I know the authorities did not take ONE SINGLE dog off of Mr. Reynolds property. Nor did anyone involved in the investigation tell anyone in the media that Mr. Reynold's dogs were involved. There can be NO other conclusion but to say "unknown" dogs. I have no idea what dog(s) killed Mr. Reynolds, nor do you, nor do the police. That equals "unknown." Also, Mr. Reynold was NOT inside a pen of a dozen pit bulls. The 17 dogs he owned were in at least 5 different locations (pens/chains) on the property. The open pen Mr. Reynolds was found near had contained three dogs, two females and a large male. The large male dog was found dead under the porch from dog bites. The two smaller female dogs were found about a half a mile away and did not have a mark on them. The case is a real head-scratcher -- and you are not in the position to speculate as to what happened. Mauro1929 (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Why can't we accept the policeman's explanation for not doing that? Chrisrus (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken, he wasn't outside the kennel, he was found inside it: [10]. So I cite WP:UCS and WP:WEATHERMAN. He was found dead of dog attack inside a pitbull kennel, with no other plausible explanation offered - case closed. Chrisrus (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus, whether or not I agree with the rest of your statement, invoking WP:UCS and WP:WEATHERMAN is not constructive. You created WP:WEATHERMAN yourself! And concerning WP:UCS, did you continue reading further down the page the section "There is no common sense":

When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense.

Onefireuser (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Chrisrus, please explain why if authorities knew which dogs killed Mr. Reynolds, they were never seized? Again, this is UNHEARD of in a fatal dog attack. And I don't care what your unreliable media source says - Call Officer Osborne and ask him - he'll tell the pen door was open, and Mr. Reynolds was found "near the pen." Mauro1929 (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Where are you getting this info?Chrisrus (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, the citation we are using says "The dogs won't be seized because the county doesn't have the resources to handle that many dogs." Chrisrus (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC). And the Daily Mail report says "It's an unusual circumstance because the victim is a co-owner of the animals. 'Obviously that's why there will not be criminal charges. If your own dog bites you, a dog can't be charged with a crime.' So that also explains why they didn't seized. As he was found dead of dog attack inside his pit bull pen, and no rational other theory provided, I'm restoring it to "pitbull" today. Please leave it that way. Chrisrus (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not backing down on this. When did you ever hear that they found a murderer but did not take him into custody because the jail was full? Seriously? Just think about that for a moment. That is even more absurd than the puma theory! IMauro1929 (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, besides the Daily Mail being the British version of the National Enquirer, the comment is absolutely absurd. It never has, nor ever will matter who owns a dog involved in a fatality. Every dog ever determined to be involved in a fatality has been siezed at some point in time and a judgement is made on that dog's fate (which is almost almost euthansia). Lots of owners have fought really hard to get their dogs back that where involved in a fatality - they simply have NO say in the matter, unless they get an attorney, and still then, almost all of them lose. Again, think about all the other cases of dogs killing owners, family members, or "co-owners," the surviving dog owner NEVER has a say in whether the dog is siezed. Mauro1929 (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok; you are saying that if I can come up with a plausible explanation as to why no dog was seized, you will leave it as it was? Chrisrus (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You can try and explain it away all you want - it doesn't matter. Dogs that are involved in fatalities are taken into custody. Period. These dogs weren't. There is nothing more to argue about. Mauro1929 (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

He was found inside his kennel of 17 pit bulls, dead of dog attack. Therefore, the pit bulls killed him, not some other stray dogs. The stray dog theory is preposterous and transparently motivated. Therefore, no explanation of the fact that no dog was seized is needed to conclude that he was killed by pit bulls. For this reason, I’m changing it back to “pit bulls”.

However, you seem to be saying that you will continue to change it back to “unknown” until you get an explanation for them not seizing the dogs. In order to get you to stop doing that, I offer the following reply about them not being seized, as far as we know.

First, you claim that in all other such cases, the dogs were seized. I would like to point out that there seem to be many cases here in which we don’t have evidence that the dogs were seized. Therefore, it seems that it might not be true that the dogs are always seized, and there may be no law or rule that says they must always be seized.

Second, the officer explained why they were not going to be seized. He said that when you are killed by your own dogs, you are both the responsible party and the victim of the “crime”, while of course dogs cannot commit crimes. He further said that they had nowhere to put 17 pit bulls better than they place they were.

Third, the loose dogs were re-secured in the kennel, and J.R., Jr. became the dog and property owner and apparently the police believed him that they would be kept secure, so the police didn’t have to worry themy would escape and harm neighbors.

Fourth, if J.R., Jr. washed the dogs before calling the cops, there was no way to know which dog(s) killed him. One dog was reportedly “injured”, but we don’t know if this would prove he was the killer. He might have been injured defending J.R., Sr. Therefore, all the dogs would have to be seized, and the officer said they were not prepared to do that.

Third, J.R., Jr., the only living grieved party that we know of, did not want the dogs seized and was arguing their innocence. He was apparently successful in arguing that that seizing the dogs was not what his father would have wanted, and would only have created another tragedy, that they were secure and not a danger to anyone, so please don’t kill all my dogs, even if one or two killed him you’d be punishing them all for the “crime” of one and that’s not right, and on and on.

Fourth, although we know about neighbors complaining about the dogs, such complaints had nothing to do with the death and so wouldn’t have been considered. We can see the kennel was excellent, (although for a smaller number of dogs) and J.R., Jr. could keep them contained. Therefore, there was no reason to seize 17 dogs, most of which were probably not involved, at county expense.

I hope that with these things in mind, you will leave the dog type identification in this case as “pit bull” because there is no rational reason to believe that unknown dogs killed him and concentrate your efforts instead on other cases where such efforts on your part, appreciated by me, might be warranted.

However, the reason I’m changing it back is simply because he was found dead of dog attack inside a pit bull kennel, leaving no rational doubt that the pit bulls killed him and I provide the above simply to appease you. Chrisrus (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus said "He was found inside his kennel of 17 pit bulls, dead of dog attack."

No he wasn't. If you look at pictures that were posted of the property in the media, you will see there were many different pens and kennels and the 17 dogs were separated into about 4 o 5 pens (hard to tell how many)

Chrisrus said: "I would like to point out that there seem to be many cases here in which we don’t have evidence that the dogs were seized. Therefore, it seems that it might not be true that the dogs are always seized, and there may be no law or rule that says they must always be seized."

Name one case were the dogs were not seized.

Chrisrus said: "He said that when you are killed by your own dogs, you are both the responsible party and the victim of the “crime”, while of course dogs cannot commit crimes. He further said that they had nowhere to put 17 pit bulls better than they place they were."

Ridiculous. There are dog fight busts were they often find 50 or 100 dogs and they always find somewhere to take the dogs. Saying that 17 dogs involved in a human death will not be taken in because there is "no room at the inn" is beyond preposterous.

This has nothing to do with whether it was a crime or not. If a dog kills a human, crime or accidental, matters not. The dog is seized - no excuses, no explanation, no legal recourse, doesn't matter who the owner is. Period.

I will continue to change it back until you provide me with something other than your own speculation. The fact of the matter is, NO ONE knows what happened. His son couldn't explain it, the Sheriff's office couldn't explain it, but yet, you, Crhrisus can - sorry, not good enough. Your speculation based on a couple of poorly written newspaper articles is not evidence of anything. 19:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauro1929 (talk • contribs)

You are mistaken. He was not found outside of the pen. He was found in the pen, according to the sourses. He was found dead of dog attack inside the pitbull kennel. See below (All emphases mine.):

1. "Preacher found dead in pit bull pen - Son reacts" http://www.ksdk.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=644138237001
2. "John came home that night and found his father on the ground in the pen with severe bite marks. He was already dead." http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=222459&odyssey=mod_mostread, Video 01:02.
3. "Elderly pastor mauled to death in dog kennel filled with 17 pit bulls"; "An elderly Missouri pastor has been found mauled to death in a pit bull pen belonging to his son." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322298/Elderly-pastor-mauled-death-dog-kennel-filled-17-pit-bulls.html#ixzz2R9BKgCXj
4. "Lt. Tim Osburn from the Callaway County Sheriff's Department says the son came home at 7.37pm on October 13 and found his dad lying dead in the kennel." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322298/Elderly-pastor-mauled-death-dog-kennel-filled-17-pit-bulls.html#ixzz2R9BKgCXj

Because J.R., Sr. was found dead of dog attack inside a pen of pitbulls, I revert it back from "unknown dogs" to "pitbull(s)". Please agree that he was found in the pen, not outside of the pen, or explain what makes you think he was not found in the pit bull pen. Chrisrus (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

OK Chrisus: Here you go: On February 23, 2011, I spoke to both Detective Tim Osborn of the Callway County Sheriff's Office and then to John Reynolds, son of the victim.

Detective Osborn said straight up he didn't know what dogs killed Mr. Reynolds and didn't really seem that interested in pursuing the matter.

Reynold's son said his father was found half inside/outside the kennel near the gate, with the gate pushed in (instead of out – his son thinks this is significant as Reynolds would have pushed the gate door out if he was exiting the kennel). One of the dogs that was in the kennel in which Reynolds was found was Harley, a 90 lb. male. Harley was found nearly mauled to death outside of the kennel near chicken coop in the yard. Two females that were in the pen with him were found by son down the road (about 2 football fields away). They appeared scared and jumped in his car. The females had NO blood or bite marks on them. This was verified by the Sheriff’s department because the deputies checked the dogs with flashlights and could find no bites or blood on the dogs. The day of the attack, his six adult dogs were confined as follows: 1 Male chained out front 1 Male, 2 Females in kennel in back 1 Male, 1 Female in house, (female was locked in bedroom as she was in estrus) The rest of the dogs were puppies in other kennels, and there was also a Jack Russell inside the house

Also, notice how none of the articles you so carefully cited really state that Reynolds WAS killed by the pit bulls. So, we can go with your speculation and the vague insinuation of a British tabloid --- or the information I personally got from the detective and the dog's owner. Needless to say, I will continue to change it back to unknown dogs.Mauro1929 (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that is classic WP:OR. I suppose it could be true, but you could also be making it all up. We have no way to know. Chrisrus (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, YOU asked me how I knew, so I told you. And your speculation is far less acceptable because you also have nothing to back it up.Mauro1929 (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I offered my speculation based only on the RSes and only because you said you wouldn't stop without it. Can you prove any claim to fact? How do we know you're not making it up? Chrisrus (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, you cannot verify my claims, as then your findings would also be "orginial research." - and so round we go with Wiki's rules. I understand you questioning my claims and don't blame you, but by the same token why should anyone accept your speculation either? It seems we are between a rock and a hard place here. Mauro1929 (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. I only speculated a bit before because you said "Chrisrus, explain why if authorities knew which dogs killed Mr. Reynolds, they were never seized?" I'm NOT changing it back to "pit bulls" because of that speculation. I'm changing it back to "pit bulls" because the available RSes say he was found dead of dog attack in a pitbull pen, and because I don't believe you when you say you talked to him and that he said that to you. Chrisrus (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I really could not care less whether you believe me or not, and I care even less about your speculation.Mauro1929 (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Good. Let's forget speculation. I'm NOT changing it back to "pit bulls" because of any speculation. I'm changing it back to "pit bulls" because the available RSes say he was found dead of dog attack inside an enclosure full of pitbulls, and everything else relevant in available RSes. Chrisrus (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus, although we haven't agreed on a number of things on this page, on the whole you seem very reasonable and seem to be trying to do what's best for Wikipedia. Have you read the CDC study on the topic of this WP article? If not, I think you should.Onefireuser (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

This is my last comment on this case: No media source, or the Sheriff's department ever definitely stated that he was killed by "pit bulls." The Sheriff's office did NOT seize any of the pit bulls. (Big red flag that something is not quite right) You will notice that while I have repeatedly changed "pit bulls" to unknown, I have never deleted the comment in the circumstances section that says he was found in a pen with "pit bulls." Mauro1929 (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The cop says "The dogs won't be seized because the county doesn't have the resources to handle that many dogs." He said they would have to investigate more and decide what to do. I can believe you that he couldn't figure out which one killed him, so he'd have to seize them all, and didn't want to do that. It's easy to believe you about that because it goes along with the statements he that it was not a police matter, and he was under no explanation to act: "It's an unusual circumstance because the victim is a co-owner of the animals." and "If your own dog bites you, a dog can't be charged with a crime." I find the explanation lacking, too, but the more I review these RSes, the easier it is to for me to see why a person in his position wouldn't choose to seize them, but that doesn't matter anyway because it doesn't change the fact that the man was killed by pit bulls because he was found dead of dog attack in a pitbull kennel, and that's I am returning this fact back to the way it was again. I hope that you, like Osborne, will decide not to persue the matter further. Chrisrus (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)  Done