Talk:Animal attack/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Animal attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091030011634/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/10/28/ns-coyote-attack-died.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/10/28/ns-coyote-attack-died.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Animal attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://myfwc.com/gators/nuisance/Attack%20Sheet.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210094720/http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html to http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Article evaluation
Article Evaluation This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: Animal attack (link) Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: Animal behaviour psychologist look to understand why animals behave in the way they do. It is important to examine the ways in which genetics and external environmental factors impact animal behaviour, especially animal attacks. More specifically, animal attacks make one question whether or not human behaviour is the actual cause of these tragic accidents. Lead Guiding questions Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The Lead does include an introductory sentence that is concise, but it focuses on the attacks involving humans and wild animals. The Lead is intentionally before the table of content and therefore its purpose is to summarize the main points of the article, but it did not. The article started off by stating that animal attacks cause severe harm to humans, and it even emphasizes the impact of animal attacks on humans, which provides the readers with some context. However, it was very repetitive and many of the ideas did not organically connect. The first element of the article read by readers is the Lead and in this case the Lead is incomplete and did not include enough relevant information. The author could have addressed why animals attack humans, how risky human behaviour is one of the main reasons for these injuries, or how victims of animal attacks are treated? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead briefly focuses on injury and the use of medical codes, but does not focus on infection, treatment, causes or effects. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? All the information in the Lead were present in the article, but were not very clear and needed to be more thorough. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise and incomplete. All of the information in the table of content such as infections, epidemiology, and treatment were not thoroughly addressed in the article. Other pieces of information in the table of content such as injury and medical code were only briefly mentioned. The Lead only mentions how animal attacks cause severe injury to humans, how common it is to be attacked by an animal, and how medical codes are used to identify certain cases. Lead evaluation Content Guiding questions Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The article's content is somewhat relevant to the topic. Even though the article is addressing animal attacks, it focuses primarily on specific animals attacking humans and how these attacks significantly affect humans. The article does not address how animal attacks affect other animals or the predator. The article does not thoroughly discuss infection or treatments. The article also fails to address the attack behaviour or the psychology of the predator and the victim. However, since animal attack is a fairly broad concept, this article aims to tackle a specific area of it, which is the effect of these attacks on humans. Is the content up-to-date? The content is mostly up-to-date. However, the author of this article begins by citing a source from 1997. The fact suggested that millions of humans are bitten by dogs annually and the author could have found a more recent source. Additionally, when addressing amputation injuries, the author cites a source from 1936, and again the author could have used a more up-to-date reference to support his or her research, as oppose to outdated sources that undermine his or her work. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is definitely some content missing, as well as, content that should be removed. The author does not mention the reasons for the attacks, but very briefly does address the injuries of these attacks. Also, the author does not clearly or specifically explain which animal he or she is focusing on and mentions numerous animals throughout the article. Furthermore, the article does not mention the various types of treatment offered to victims or a specific treatment case study on an animal attack. Content evaluation Tone and Balance Guiding questions Is the article neutral? The article is not neutral because the author states facts as opinions, and does not cite multiple lines of his or her work. The author also fails to include the effects of these attacks on animals and strictly focuses on how it impacts humans, which ultimately ignores other perspectives. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The author does not attempt to examine other perspectives or even address how animal attacks affect predators. Additionally, some of the factual information is not cited and therefore can be mistaken for an opinion instead of a fact. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The author only addresses the impact of animal attacks on humans, but does not shed a light on the reasons of the attacks. The article does not mention how risky human behaviour may cause these attacks or how the low population of a predator's prey may be the cause of these accidents. Also, the author repeatedly mentions that animal attacks cause severe harm to humans, but the author fails to clearly address treatment, infections, and epidemiology. Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another? The author does attempt to persuade the readers in favour of his or her position. Throughout the article, the author stresses that animal attacks cause numerous human injuries and only includes sources that support that claim. The author does not mention how animal attacks impact wild animals or how these attacks harm them. Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References Guiding questions Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The majority of the facts are backed up by a reliable secondary source, but some facts were not cited at all. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes all the sources are thorough, and very relevant to the topic. Are the sources current? Yes, most of the sources are within the last ten years. However, the author makes reference to research and facts from the 30s and the 90s. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the the available links work, but some facts were not properly cited. Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article was concise because it was incomplete and in need of more detail. It was not difficult to read or understand, but it lacked some substance and it was extremely repetitive. Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? There was a few grammatical and spelling errors. For instance, when addressing ferrets, the author writes "Pet ferrets attacks", instead of ferret attacks. Again, the author mentions that "no medical treatment given" instead of no medical treatment was given. Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is not well-organized because it was repetitive, and consisted of incomplete ideas and grammatical errors. Many of the ideas and sentences did not connect or serve any purpose. For instance, the article included a fact from 1997, which did not contribute to the piece and a current fact would have better supported the author's claims. Organization evaluation Images and Media Guiding questions Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article has an image of a dog biting a human hand. It is a 1941 poster for the Cleveland Division of Health. However, animal attacks are attacks between animals and this image makes it appear that humans are always the victims of these attacks, which can be misleading. Are images well-captioned? The caption clearly states what the image represents and gives enough context about the general topic. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The author's article provides the permission details, and the image is in the public domain, so it is fair to assume that the only image of this article adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There is only one image and it is from a 1941 poster so it is not attention grabbing or visually appealing. However, it provides enough context about the overall topic. Images and media evaluation Checking the talk page Guiding questions What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There was a call to change the name of the article from animal attacks to animal attacks on humans, but after further discussion it was instead changed to animal attack. How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is a part of many wikiprojects and it is rated C-class because it is missing some context, more detail and proper citations. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have defined animal behaviour as the study of actions of animals and we have also examined the relationship of animals and their environment. The author of this article focuses primarily on the interaction between a predator and its prey. More specifically, the effects of animal attacks on humans. Talk page evaluation Overall impressions Guiding questions What is the article's overall status? The article was rated C-class, Low Importance, it was last edited on 25 March 2019. Overall, the article is lacking critical details, and missing some citations, so it is incomplete. What are the article's strengths? The author provides many sources to support his or her claims. The author also used reliable secondary sources to support their claims. How can the article be improved? The article needs more detail and to be completed. For instance, the author needs to focus on a specific predator and prey, as well as, the effects of these accidents on the prey and predator. The author should also address the reason for these attacks and how to improve the interaction between animals in order to reduce these attacks. How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is repetitive, and lacks many significant details and citations; therefore it is poorly developed and incomplete. Overall evaluation Optional activity Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback Q: What are the causes and effects of animal attacks on predators and preys? with four tildes — 02:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)AnimalBehaviorStudent (talk)

Recentism
Thank you for bringing your concerns about the article regarding recentism. An examination of the references will demonstrate that the attacks that are referenced in the article go back to the 1800s. I limited myself to including references of animal attacks that are historical. I'm not sure that that means that the article has a problem with recentism, unless of course, the 1800s are considered "recent" by some. In addition to keep interest in the article, I included the most recent instances of documented animal attacks. The article is by no means finished and I consider it in its earliest stages. At this time, I'm concentrating on presenting documented information on the wide variety of animal attacks rather than all the documented tiger attacks that have occurred since the early 1800s, for example. Animal attacks that are documented in some form, will be added as I research news articles from the 1980s and beforehand. Best regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 14:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Animal attacks in North America
Judging by the WikiProject tags, the scope of this article is North America. I guess someone will need to change the name. Hack (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments concerning this new article. There's much content concerning large cats such as tigers and lions. In addition there is information about crocodiles and hyenas. Perhaps at some future date we may divide the article into regions but at this point the content is not sufficient to organize it in such a way. Any other feedback that you have is greatly appreciated. Best regards,

 Bfpage &#124;leave a message 14:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC):::

Panther Section
I have removed the section on panthers as panthers are not real animals. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Pythons
The referenced link under "python kills 2 yr old girl" doesn't go anywhere relevant. Remove bullet.

The referenced link under "rock python kills 2 boys" is to a National Geographic news article whose by-line says "allegedly attacked 2 boys." So the wording in wikipedia should indicate that it allegedly happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.239.236.44 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: NO CONSENSUS to move, but that the current title should be singular (MOVED to Animal attack as an uncontroversial technical request). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  12:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC) —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  12:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Animal attacks → Animal attacks on humans – Procedural nomination. Someone manually moved this, feeling the current title was ambiguous (though the alternative they picked was way over the top: Nonhuman animal attacks on humans). Seems worth discussion, either because it is ambiguous enough to naturally disambiguate from animals fighting other animals, or to at least establish a consensus for the current title. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose for a similar case at swimming (moving it from human swimming), which closed with the remark "Wikipedia has an inherent bias towards humans. This is OK; last I checked, the majority of our readers are human". This is not ambiguous. Whenever you hear a news report about an animal attack, it's safe to assume the victim is a human, and therefore it goes without saying. Unless there's an article for Animal attacks on animals, for example...  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're making a lot of sense. Also, I'm now taking note of the very large number of examples of this type of title right on this page. Looks like the vast majority are like "Tiger attack" and "Cat bite", with only a couple like "Coyote attacks on humans".&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - I requested the reversion of that move to the extra long title, but specifying that this article is about attacks against humans seems quite reasonable.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But where are the sections on cavalry and war elephants? Dekimasu よ! 17:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC) 
 * WP:Be bold!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Lugnuts (Fire Walk with Me). And, per Fyrael, we should also move Coyote attacks on humans to Coyote attacks (which was actually a redlink until just now! WTF?), and do similarly with any other such titles. Other precedent is that Albinism in humans and Albinism were respectively moved to Albinism and Albinism in biology (though Albinism (biology) would be more WP:CONSISTENT, actually) on the same "Wikipedia has an inherent bias towards humans" basis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Counter-proposal - We should actually be moving this to singular Animal attack per WP:PLURAL&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * True, but if this RM fails (which it should), that can be done at WP:RM/TR anyway, or just manually.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Animal attacks on humans makes sense per WP:CRITERIA. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you expand on that a bit? I would think they're equal on recognizability; the shorter title wins for naturalness, conciseness, and consistency; and the longer title has better precision.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Most animal attacks will naturally be on their prey. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * People don't use this term for that though. If someone said "there was an animal attack in the park yesterday" and it turned out that a coyote had eaten a rabbit I would consider that person to have intentionally mislead me.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Zacly. We're not apt to use "attack" except with regard to domesticated animal victims (livestock and pets). However, in the livestock context we're using predation: Domestic sheep predation.  Wild or other domestic animal attacks on pets ("Rotweiler killt mah kitteh!") isn't a notable topic in and of itself, though some particular niche variants, like use of cats as fighting-dog bait, might be. I don't think we'd use "attacks" there either, as the subject wouldn't be what the dogs are doing, but what their human keepers/trainers are doing. Domestic animal stuff is only notable within a human context.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New bold page move
please read the above discussion about this article's title and if you still believe a move is appropriate then start a new move request to see if other editors have changed their minds.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

List of most fatal animals - remove?
This whole section should be removed, in my opinion. The list gives 10 fatal wolf attacks per year, which seems way too high. Upon following link (9) I find an article on C-Net which seems to be just click-bait, not serious research.Dean1954 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

List of attacks
and, please discuss here before performing any further reverts, per WP:BRD. It's already questionable whether the second revert should've been done without discussion.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Fyrael, I appreciate what you're trying to do. But you're pointing at an essay., however, reverted without even so much as an explanation--and that is disruptive. Drmies (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about BRD, that's a very widely respected, frequently cited custom here on Wikipedia. Totally agree that an edit summary at minimum should've been provided on the revert though.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)