Talk:Wolf attack/Archive 2

Anyhow, back to the discussion

 * As to editor M.'s comments, he is certainly correct that coyote attacks in pre-science era are not relevant. Am sorry that I've muddied the waters.


 * Dog attacks, however are valid in this context. Why not rely on reports of dog attacks dating from pre-20th Century (pre-science)? Surely they are vast reports in the "historical" record? Or why not in case of "wolves" rely mainly on attacks confirmed by modern science, of which there are several dozen.


 * (Moreover, I surely find that John Linnel is an interesting source. Merely I suggest here proper weighting.)

BTW, ANY news from Kashmir region (In political dispute among cultures that don't fully accept western science), is much-beset with credibility problems, unless from very few credible western sources independent of regional politics.76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Why not rely on reports of dog attacks dating from pre-20th Century (pre-science)?


 * I don't know. Ask the person who wrote the article. I myself don't see why the dog attack article should be used as a model. In fact, no animal attack article has ever reached the status of Good Article, so there really isn't a good frame of reference here. I do however notice that the Shark attack article also includes sources from the 16th century.


 * Or why not in case of "wolves" rely mainly on attacks confirmed by modern science, of which there are several dozen.


 * Because no modern wolf-related source (i.e., post "there has never been a fatal attack..." era) uses such stringent criteria. I've already mentioned (twice I believe now) Linnell and Mech having no problems accepting the accounts, so I'll turn to Geist, who explains this pretty well:


 * The material pertaining to man-killing wolves is not science and can never be “scientific”. To make demands that it be so is based on a mistaken notion of what science is within the larger realm of scholarship. We learn about wolf attacks on humans from a great number of diverse sources, from interviews of first person experiences of survivors, participants and observers, from entries by priests into parish records, from entries by county clerks into county and court records, and the evaluations of such records by commissions, the police, scientists, historians, civil servants and laypersons. Historians have the best tools and background to study such reports and place them into context. Science enters the scene only in that it can pronounce on the same material in a manner historians and other disciplines cannot. And what science can contribute depends entirely on the disciplinary background of the scientists involved. Mariomassone (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Several edits that appear in talk page history are not appearing. What is the problem? 76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have in front of me "Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages" by W. Graves. In the relevant chapter "Wolf Attacks on Humans," Ten of the 31 notes are from "Hunting and Game Management" which I guess is some sort of Russian publication. Six of the notes are amplification-type commentary from the editor, two are from "The Moscow Hunting Newspaper" and a couple more from publications that appear to be aimed at hunters. Also two from The Moscow Times something from a novel; something from "Military Press, Moscow, 1957," an unpublished letter, a couple of ""author's notes and discussion with Russians..." Large swaths of text in the chapter quote lurid details of wolf attacks on humans without citing any sources at all. So he's a historian? a scientist, or what?35.8.218.49 (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * By notes, do you mean citations? Regardless, "Hunting and Game Management" sounds to me like an official bureau of some sort, and if so, it seems likely they take their data collection seriously. I'd have to see the whole citation though, to get a sense of what manner of source we are truly talking about here. I for one have no clue what you mean by "amplification-type commentary from the editor"; I presume we are talking about sources still? If so, who's editor, Graves? If so, what makes them amplified and can you provide more than a subjective assessment of the author/editors style as to why the sources are untrustworthy? Concerning the "Moscow Hunting Newspaper", it's not necessarily an invalid source just because it happens to be targeted at hunters (and in any event, it's not cited here). Same goes for the other hunting publications you note: A) we can only take your vague assessment that they are targeted at hunters and I think most of the editors here have become wary of assuming your assessment to be neutral, especially when you chose not to name these publications, but did so for the others, B) even if they are targeted at hunters, that doesn't in itself disqualify them as viable sources, and C) they aren't directly cited here in any event. What specifically is the "something" from the Military Press, Moscow?  Nothing you've provided on that source makes it sound questionable so far.  As to the last, yes, believe it or not, authors are allowed to do their own research without falling into the category of unreliable sources.  As to your descriptor of the content as "lurid", I've gotten the impression so far that you consider any source that confirms a wolf attack as real you would describe as untrustworthy and hyperbolic and every single last time that someone here has tried to inquire if this in fact your position, you have ducked the question, so I'm dubious about your claim there.  Lastly, an over-arching point - Graves himself is the source cited on this article, not any of those sources you've listed.  We tend to assess things in terms of secondary sources (not primary) here and Graves seems to pass the bar in that regard.  Now, that doesn't mean some of those entries supported by his work might not be called into question here if we can confirm that they are likely to be false or highly exaggerated, but you're going to have to provide a LOT more than you have there.  A good start is to list the citations, in their entirety, exactly as they appear in the reference list and/or footnotes in Graves' work.  Then we can all try to have an open minded debate about whether the book should be regarded as an invalid source.  Lastly, I don't know how to regard the man's profession; you're the one with the book in front of you and presumably it lists his credentials and goes into some depth as to his process. Snow (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It just so happens that I also have a copy in front of me. Here are all references from the chapter on wolf attacks on humans:


 * Editor's note.
 * The Large Soviet Encyclopedia, vol. 3, (1970)
 * German, V. Hunting and game management, Feb, 1977
 * Matusevich, V. Hunting and game management, June 1977
 * Gerasimov, Y. Hunting and game management, Sep 1977
 * Pavlov, M. P. (1982) The Wolf
 * Editor's note.
 * Editor's note.
 * Author's note.
 * Cherkasov, A. A. (1884) Notes of a Hunter-Naturalist
 * Djilas, M. (1958) Land without justice
 * Wolves and their destruction, Military Press, Moscow 1957, Yu Milenushkin, p. 103
 * Makarov, V. Hunting and game management, June 1978
 * Bibikova, V. Hunting and game management, Oct 1979
 * Author's note + discussions with Russians
 * Hunting and game management, June 1980
 * Gusev, O. Hunting and game management Nov 1978
 * The Moscow Times, 12 Oct 1995
 * Semenov, B. Hunting and game management, Aug 1989
 * Naumkin, N. Hunting and game management, March 1983
 * Ryabov, L. Hunting and game management July 1985
 * The Moscow Times, Jan 26, 1995
 * The Moscow Tribune, Oct 28, 1992
 * The Moscow Hunting Newspaper, 13 Jul 1994
 * Hope, J. Wolf Hybrids as pets, Smithsonian, June 1994
 * Kamerer, Y. "Suitcase contained wolf's head", The Moscow Hunting Newspaper, Oct 12, 1994
 * Dr Walter E. Howard, Professor Emeritus of Wildlife Biology and Vertebrate Ecology, University of California, Davis, letter dated 13 Feb 1997
 * Malov, O. et. al. "The age old war", Nature and Hunting, Feb. 1992
 * Bunin, I. (1933), The Village
 * Editor's note.


 * It should be noted that the Military Press article was likely part of the so-called Manteifel commission (a summary of which can be seen in my sandbox), judging by its title.


 * Perhaps it is just me, but I'm noticing a disturbing trend in these IP users to stress the Russian origins of the sources, as if that somehow disqualifies them.Mariomassone (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to do that, Mario. As to the IPs, I think they are one in the same person.  In any event, I'm not seeing anything in there that suggests that Graves should be dismissed as an improper source.   I'll try to put hands on a copy myself to look into the IP's claims of hyperbole, but honestly, even if I agreed with him (and I'm dubious at this point that I'd have the same interpretation as him on any source concerning this subject), I still don't know if there would be a policy argument for removing it.  But in the interest of protecting the credibility of the article, it can't hurt to look.  Can I ask you, what is your impression of the prose within the book?  Does it match the IP's description of "lurid" for you?  Enough so that you'd question the integrity of the author to report the facts honestly and without unbalancing bias? Snow (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Although the author does express "disgust" over the North American denial of wolf aggression in the book's introduction, he does state that he does not support the eradication of wolves, merely to illustrate the Russian experience with wolves and how it differs from that of North America (which no one can deny). As to the prose (I am referring specifically to the chapter on human casualties), it is actually mind numbingly dry, with the descriptions of each attack being no more "lurid" than the more graphic descriptions found in the Linnel and Oriani reports (i.e., wolves grabbing children, carrying them away, remains found later etc.). The only times where I'd call them "lurid" is his overuse of the word "terrorizing" and when he's actually quoting other sources, particularly actual survivors of wolf attacks, whose traumatic experience would of course colour their use of language. Overall, while it may be a shocking read to those unacquainted with non-North American wolf literature/behaviour, none of what is says differs significantly from the Indian/Italian/Scandinavian accounts. Almost all of them come to the exact same conclusions, yet I don't see anyone attacking them. It would appear that Grave's book is being targeted simply because it was advertised better and is available to a wider audience than the scientific/historical studies undertaken in India/Italy/Scandinavia etc. Mariomassone (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Point is, the majority (13?) of Graves' relevant citations are of sources related to hunting -- mostly in fact, a single source. This of course would be setting aside the five author/editor notes (which merely amplify points in text) and the cited novel ("wolf hybrids as pets," is also not particularly relevant).

So that leaves him with three Russian newspaper reports (& yes, sadly, the Russian press is often unreliable); one 1957 citation from the Russian "Military Press", an unpublished letter and something called "The Wolf"? Oh, and a citation of "The Large Soviet Encyclopedia," used merely regarding the utterly non-controversial point that rabid animals are dangerous.

Okay; sorry I called the descriptions "lurid," although the objection is probably gratuitous. My point is/was merely that nearly all of the many, many attacks detailed by Graves are, with few exceptions, unsupported by ANY citations whatsoever. So we are left to rely almost entirely upon Graves' personal authority, which is minimal. To me, this suggests an unreliable source (among several upon which this article needlessly relies). Graves' unique book, whatever its merits, is clearly not a piece of scientific writing and it is objectively impossible to evaluate as history. Moreover, its view & theme can be described as an outlier among the relevant literature. 35.8.219.96 (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * the majority (13?) of Graves' relevant citations are of sources related to hunting


 * And?


 * the cited novel ("wolf hybrids as pets," is also not particularly relevant).


 * The novel served to illustrate the impact wolf attacks have had on the Russian psyche, and isn't even included in the wiki article's re-write, so I don't see why it's an issue for you. The wolfdog article is from Smithsonian (magazine), and serves to illustrate the aggression of wolf-dog hybrids, which is in fact relevant.


 * yes, sadly, the Russian press is often unreliable


 * So is the US press. And the French press. And the Australian press. And the... okay, you get what I mean. I'm sorry, it just doesn't work that way. If you have an objection to a specific newspaper story, find an official refutation or retraction. You can't just say "we can't cite this one BBC article because the British are neo-colonial imperialists!" In fact, this is the second time an anonymous IP user has complained about a non-Anglophone news source on account of its country of origin. Last time it was an Indian source, and the excuse was "their culture doesn't fully embrace Western science", or something to that effect...


 * In closing, I'll leave these scans here, as I feel it will save a lot of time and hassle:


 * ::p.87 :: pp.88-89 :: pp.90-91 :: pp.92-93 :: pp. 94-95 :: pp. 96-97 :: pp. 98-99 :: pp. 100-101 :: pp. 102-103 :: refs :: refs :: refs
 * Mariomassone (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Major distinctions CAN be drawn between large U.S. journalism outlets and those of Russia and of the so-called developing world, but that's very much a side issue, as are number of other social, cultural &etc. matters that indirectly bear on the relative state of wildlife biology in various parts of the world.

But on a slightly more central question: citing a hunting publication when writing on wolves is like citing a Vatican publication when writing on atheism; it won't get you very far.

The very limited source material cited by Graves suggests only his intellectual framework.

More to the point: As for most (nearly all?) of the wolf attacks Graves describes, one can only guess at how he arrived at his material. Merely that a book is actually published certainly doesn't make it reliable source.

I've suggested a reasonable basis for evaluating Graves' work. At minimum one can say it obviously flunks the standards for a Wikipedia article. That is to say, were the book chapter "attacks on humans" published as a Wikipedia article, the vast bulk of it would be unacceptable for its lack of sourcing. Interestingly, Graves gave a 2011 speech to "The Property Rights Foundation of America," a small group whose Web site offers an extensive warning about the dangers to U.S. sovereignty of the United Nations. In this speech, Graves explicitly contradicted much basic research relied upon by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. F&WS frankly, represents the gold standard in wildlife biology.

Graves fits the definition a fringe theorist.

The article in its current state DOES cite a number of reliable sources, which are adequate to fleshing out the topic. 35.8.218.59 (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome back @East Lansing...Graham1973 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Major distinctions CAN be drawn between large U.S. journalism outlets and those of Russia and of the so-called developing world, but that's very much a side issue, as are number of other social, cultural &etc. matters that indirectly bear on the relative state of wildlife biology in various parts of the world.


 * Sorry, but we don't operate via such sweeping generalizations or anglo-centric bias. Frankly, there are places where your dismissal of sources based on their nation of origin border on the biggoted, as if you don't trust the primitive people of those countries to apply a standard with even basic empirical merit.


 * Anyway, having read the relevant chapter now (thanks for Mario for making it available), I really do not see your interpretation of the tone of the chapter born out at all. Point in fact, there is a very heavy emphasis throughout those pages upon rabies or the wolf perceiving a threat to explain the majority of the specific cited attacks, with attacks that are suggested to be predatory relatively few by comparison.  You do believe that a wolf with rabies is capable of attacking a person, correct?  Because after half a dozen efforts to get you to clarify your perspectives, we've still yet to see you elucidate on whether you think wolfs ever attack people, under any circumstances.


 * Getting back to the more central issue; even if Grave's accounts had smelled fishy, in terms of policy, I don't know that I could have supported removing it; it's still a valid secondary source. You feel you know better than he does, but that is not Wikipedia works.  Nor do you get to toss out a valid source because you suspect his process is flawed; the truth is, you know very little, all told, about how he gathered or evaluated his information and in any event, it's not really relevant here; if we could throw out any source simply because we didn't think very much of it, every content dispute would devolve into a quagmire.  Your analogy comparing the relevant chapter to a Wikipedia article isn't really useful or relevant; the fact of the matter is that it is not an article and the standards for verification within an article are not at all the same thing as the criteria for valid secondary sources.  Snow (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, regarding Graves' comments about F&W, they are not relevant to the topic at hand, and wikipedia does not practice guilt by association. A case in point involves Konrad Lorenz, who was a former Nazi sympathizer, but whose works on ethology are still widely cited today. Mariomassone (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of whether Graves is right, wrong, accurate or inaccurate. It's that he is a fringe theorist with no relevant credentials other than having a book printed (apparently, he sells copies from his home address). Graves' comments on F&W were made entirely in the context of a talk on the contents of his book. In essence, he pointed out (accurately & somewhat obviously) that his book contradicts mainstream views of his topic.

Moreover, his sources are largely unavailable for objective evaluation.
 * So Graves clearly represents fringe theory. Wikipedia has a set of guidelines WP:FRINGE WP:REDFLAG that are somewhat relevant to how such material might best be presented.
 * As for newspapers: You've got the New York Times the People's Daily, the National Enquirer Pravda; In India, there were 35,595 newspapers published as of 1993, including 3,805 dailies. At least one of them recently picked up an article from The Onion thinking it was real. This in a country where, as of '93, only 53% of the population could read. So yeah, like you say, it's all good & let's not be ethnocentric about stuff. Main thing is, whether it's been published, somewhere.

35.8.218.59 (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's that he is a fringe theorist with no relevant credentials other than having a book printed (apparently, he sells copies from his home address).


 * His credentials include his professional fluency in Russian, and the fact that most of the relevant chapter is derived from several sources from people with credentials relevant to wolf behaviour. Yes, I think hunters and game managers wouldn't have the jobs they have if they didn't have at least a basic knowledge on carnivorous mammals. Also, many of the cited attacks also come from an appendix in the book incorporating a text from an actual Russian wildlife biologist confirming most of the older cases. We're not talking about wolf-caused effects on ungulate population dynamics here, or the spread of pathogens, which are more in line with F&W's jurisdiction.


 * he pointed out (accurately & somewhat obviously) that his book contradicts mainstream views of his topic.


 * What, that wolves don't attack people? That's been proven to be false, and thankfully even North American wolf biologists are finally catching on to that.


 * Moreover, his sources are largely unavailable for objective evaluation.


 * Maybe not to an English-speaking monoglot. If you have any Russian contacts, please feel free to contact them. In the meantime, I'll happily go through my French and Italian sources which would otherwise not see the light of day here.


 * So Graves clearly represents fringe theory.


 * The idea that wolves being dangerous is a mere fringe theory (in North America at least) died alongside the man in Saskatchewan in 2005.


 * In India, there were 35,595 newspapers published as of 1993, including 3,805 dailies.


 * That's hardly surprising, considering India is home to a myriad of different ethnicities, cultures and religions, all of which speak different languages and some of which once had their own states.


 * At least one of them recently picked up an article from The Onion thinking it was real.


 * And which one would that be? Condemning all the Indian press on account of that one would be like concluding that Fox News discredits all other US news outlets, for now and forevermore.


 * This in a country where, as of '93, only 53% of the population could read.


 * And as of 2011, 74% can read. So? Mariomassone (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please, let's not validate his most irrelevant claims with debates about their veracity and give him an excuse to take us farther down the rabbit hole and further away from anything to do with policy. Most of what he's said in his most recent post has absolutely no policy relevance.  We do not, for example discriminate against sources solely by nationality under any circumstance whatsoever.  That's in direct conflict with community consensus in so many ways and to such a huge degree that I don't even know where to start.  He doesn't seem to understand that there are literally millions of Wikipedia articles that make regular, liberal, and completely uncontentious use of sources from the press and published works of the countries he is blanketly denigrating. We judge sources on other, highly specific and less generally biased criteria. In any event, Graves is a published secondary source that is not in any way (that I've thus far seen) invalid, his most recent cries of WP:Fringe not withstanding.   But since he is at least trying to make himself familiar with policy (albeit by focusing on guidelines that he thinks will further the notion he has in mind while entering the research), I will direct him to this particular piece of key policy and hope that the wording does a better job of explaining this issue to him than my own words have:


 * First, from WP:NPOV (a pillar policy): As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process.


 * And, from WP:Identifying reliable sources: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are good sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.


 * Mind you, I don't find Graves biased; even if I do wonder about some of the numbers presented, I know of no particular source directly contradicting them and in any event, his work is cited not for those figures but for the specific attacks, none of which seem to sell the point of wolf aggression in the way the IP keeps suggesting it does. A huge percentage of the attacks detailed are either confirmed or suspected rabies attacks, and given the range of wilderness that his writing covers and the numbers of both people and animals involved, this really seems to me to lend credence to the notion of the wolf attack as aberrant behaviour.  Perhaps that's a simple compromise we could offer that he might appreciate; making sure that each and every entry on that list that was suspected to have rabies involved is appropriately marked.  I don't know that anything will get him off his one-track approach though; all he seems interested in is removing content; I've made the effort to explain that in cases of contentious issues with widely different (but well documented) perspectives, we prefer to add content to present those differences of opinions amongst experts ad nauseum, but each has failed.  I came here only for the RFC initially, but at this point I'm ready do a little light re-writing myself, in the form of an independent section which can then be easily added to your re-write which details the historical and academic history of the debate and how wildly it has fluctuated.  Having framed the debate and contextualized the data and reports for the reader, I will thereafter feel completely justified in completely ignoring his further calls for removal of sourced content and simply revert any change he makes that is blatantly in conflict with policy.


 * Post-edit: I realized I had neglected to address one specific argument forwarded by the current resident IP -- the implication of WP:Fringe. IP, you've said:


 * "It's [a question of whether] he is a fringe theorist with no relevant credentials other than having a book printed (apparently, he sells copies from his home address). Graves' comments on F&W were made entirely in the context of a talk on the contents of his book. In essence, he pointed out (accurately & somewhat obviously) that his book contradicts mainstream views of his topic. Moreover, his sources are largely unavailable for objective evaluation. So Graves clearly represents fringe theory. Wikipedia has a set of guidelines WP:FRINGE WP:REDFLAG that are somewhat relevant to how such material might best be presented."''


 * Right you are, we do, and here's how they apply to demonstrate that Graves does not qualify as fringe. First off, as you can see via  a search of the ISBN, Graves' findings have been presented at least twice as articles under the same title as the book (which they are presumably distillations thereof) -- one of those publications is for the Journal of Wildlife Management, which I'd hardly classify as fringe.   Understand that, for our purposes here (and I believe in general) an unconventional interpretation does not in itself represent psuedo-science.  In any event, as our reference section and any kind of familiarity with the subject clearly demonstrate, the notion of wolves as aggressive even to humans under certain circumstances is hardly unique to Graves or uncommon to the research in this area.  I don't have the title/copyright page(s) handy and will presume upon Mario to provide them if/when he has time, but the ISBN registries suggest the publisher is Detselig_Enterprises, which general search engines and Open Library demonstrate to be publishers of trade, general interest, and (largely) academic texts on a significant variety of subjects.  The fact (which I'd be curious to know the source of?) that he sells them out of his house, be it true or not, has absolutely no relevance here; an author profiting from his work does not disqualify that work as a reliable source.  I'd also be curious to have a link to the interview you've referenced, as I doubt anything he's said would truly mark his views as fringe (why would he say that?), but probably just rather conflicting with that of specific other researchers.  But I'll keep an open mind until you supply the reference.  The only remaining provision of WP:REDFLAG that could possibly apply is that the sources be, as you say:


 * Moreover, his sources are largely unavailable for objective evaluation.


 * First, just for clarity, you've mis-characterized how the policy operates here a bit; availability is not a criteria that can be used to discard even the valued secondary sources that we directly cite, and certainly no higher level of access is required the sources they themselves use. The part of the policy you perhaps meant to invoke concerns [[WP:REDFLAG|

sources that are "Supported purely by primary or self-published sources."]] Please note the purely; the cited source is only required to have multiple secondary sources in order to meet this criteria, a bar Graves' work passes by a mile. Finally, though it is superfluous, it is worth noting that Library Thing alone shows nearly 2.5 million hits for the ISBN, showing considerable interest in the book, though I want to make it clear that numbers are never necessary to establish that a source is not fringe: they just happen to be consistent with the rest of the evidence in this case. In any event, there's not a single case in all of the citations attributed to Graves' text that pertains in the least to a controversial claim -- indeed, most of the citations regard the details of particular attacks, a fact you are clearly aware of as you landed on examining Graves' by way of your larger effort to remove content on that list; clearly there can be no fringe theory if there is zero theorizing taking place to begin with, but rather the statement of non-analytical details. Those details can only be said to collectively be relevant to one claim - that wolf attacks occur, and much as you seem to view that claim as fictitious, it is clearly the judgment of every other editor who has spoken on this issue that this is in no way regarded as a fringe narrative by our sources collectively. Sorry, but personally I see no validity to your argument that this author is fringe, having looked into the matter. Just as, having read the chapter that you decried as lurid, I only found a fairly detached compilation of brief accounts and statistics. I understand that you really don't care for the man's findings, and even less for the entries on that list you'd like to demolish bit by bit, since you can't get it removed by principle, but the fact of the matter is that I believe you have to let go of this one, because Graves as a source has now been looked at from every angle I can think of, and seems above-board. Snow (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Poll: Does Graves' Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages meet the criteria of a reliable source?
Affirmative Argument:The question of the validity of a major contributing source for a significant chunk of content has been called into question by an editor; I believe his assertions are mostly untrue or not of policy relevance, and have detailed my reasons in the thread immediately above; for now, since there are just a few of us, I'll do this informally and allow my statements therein to represent my view. However, I invite 76.250.61.95/35.8.218.59/Eastlans to re-summarize his view that the source represents fringe research bellow, if he so desires. Snow (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Opposing Argument: ((Eastlans))

Yes

 * Yes (As nominator). Snow (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Mariomassone (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Chrisrus (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * I do, however, think that we might benefit from making sure any reference from Graves, or any other source where the detail is available, clearly acknowledges when rabies was known or suspected to have been involved in specific attacks. Snow (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The crux of Graves' more academic sources stem from a book entitled The Wolf by Mikhail Pavlov, a Russian zoologist whose book was widely censored during the communist era. A chapter of the book concerning wolf attacks is included as an appendix in Graves' work (separate from Graves' own take, which I've previously scanned). I think the article could use a different citation system, which would differentiate between Pavlov's and Grave's writings. Mariomassone (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mariomo said here, on Oct. 7 that "verification of historical events lies squarely within the competence of historians, not biologists." Certainly Graves is not a historian, nor a biologist, and I agree with M's earlier assertion.
 * Thought it was Mr. Snow but was wrong-- anyway, a third person also defending current article's problematic source list, said that mainstream science is "suppressing information" and "the people need to know," (about folk accounts of wolf attacks) via this Wikipedia article. This is Graves' stated position.


 * Thus, Graves seems to be the ideal vehicle for this folk "information." Perhaps he's the main vehicle. His sources are mainly not subject to objective evaluation. His point of view is counter to the mainstream ---thus by definition, he espouses a fringe theory, as explained in various Wikipedia material on sources. The article ought to make this distinction.


 * There are a number of very relevant sources quoted in this article that easily meet accepted definition of reliable sources. Several, including Graves, either are unreliable or should be treated as fringe material.76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "His point of view is counter to the mainstream and is thus by definition, a fringe theory."


 * No, I fear you don't fully understand the general-use definition of the term and you definitely don't understand it as it applies to Wikipedia policy. "Counter to the predominant trend in research" is not in any way, shape, or form equivalent to fringe theory/psuedoscience.  Point in fact, progress in research depends on the rigorous testing of alternative theories.   In any event, A) There is not one claim made by Graves (at least that is presented anywhere in our article), which runs contrary a views held by the majority of our sources that speak to those same issues and B) for the last time, It wouldn't matter anyway. because Graves' doesn't have to be neutral -- no source has to be perfectly neutral or consistent with what you personally regard as the consensus (and by the way, your perspectives have time and time again been shown to be farther from median than those of anyone else involved here, editor or source).  All it has to do is meet our conditions for a reliable source.   Which it does.  I've addressed how it does with regard to two pillar policies, (WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutrality) and a slew of guideline pages.  You need to provide a valid policy reason for the removal of a source and the content it supports, not just claims along the lines of "Well it's clearly lies."   So far, WP:Fringe is the only policy page you've invoked.  I've responded above showing that this policy is simply one more that supports the source in question as consistent with policy.  If you have any other policies you feel apply, please detail your reasoning. Snow (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not saying "remove" Graves.
 * Nor am I saying that one ought to lump "fringe theory" into "pseudoscience" as you suggest. This itself, would be misunderstanding of "fringe theory" and its proper treatment.
 * Those theorists who contradict mainstream, in this case federal wildlife baseline, are fringe theorists. Graves, like Galileo,  does this. He may be right or wrong. But it is clear.
 * This article is about animal behavior. Generally, this is understood as a branch of science. It may be argued that it is also

a matter of history, folklore, or perhaps other disciplnes. Graves is neither a scientist, historian nor folklorist.


 * Peer reviewed material should receive greater weight than other sources, when dealing in science and history. Probably also in folklore. I don't know Graves' preferred category, but he is not peer reviewed, nor has he credentials as author.


 * However, there ARE some peer reviewed sources cited in current article. There are other sources, including Graves. Weighting ought to reflect basic reliability of various sources, is my view.
 * "List" by definition is unweighted by citations, probably makes this impossible. Thus I think list is unsupportable.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going bullet-point from now on, because I am tired of explaining the same points over and over at length.
 * If you are not looking to remove Graves' citations, why are we debating his value as a reliable source?
 * We've already established that Graves' does not meet the criteria for a fringe source according to our policies, which are the only arguments of relevance here. The fact that you find his views to be not of the mainstream is irrelevant.  Also, you are the only one here who believes this to be the case; the rest of us all seem to agree that he basically has the exact same perspective as the rest of our sources on the subject; wolves are typically evasive of humans, but in situations involving rabies, habituation, or extremely strained resources and territory, they may attack humans.  What in that is non-mainstream? Anyway, any theories that he may or may not have on wolf aggression are not listed here in the article in any event, so, once again, the argument is irrelevant.
 * This article is not strictly about animal behaviour examined only by the lens of specific scientific fields. In fact, we are urged by policy to present the subject through as many different perspectives as our sources will reasonably allow and to avoid a tone that overly technical.  Sources do not have to be peer-reviewed, nor do they all have to arise from the same level of empirical testing.  But for the record, Graves' work has been peer-reviewed in the Journal of Wildlife Management, as I noted above.  As for his credentials as an author, we don't need to sell you on his education, methods, or acclaim; he meets the only criteria that are relevant for judging him as an acceptable source.
 * Graves is given no more weight than any other source on that list or in the article in general. He is listed multiple times because he happens to be the source for those particular attacks, and it is an inclusive list (in fact the only thing that could create undue weight on it is if we excluded entries for any reason than that the sources was invalid).  If another author came along citing a larger number of attacks (and was deemed a reliable source) we'd add those as well, but it wouldn't mean we were giving more weight to that new author's views than to Graves.   In fact, as I've already pointed out several times, none of the citations of Graves even forward a theory or claim that is the least bit in conflict with any other source, which is what we are talking about on Wikipedia when we assess due/undue weight.  Almost all of the citations are for specific attacks and only five are cited in the sections discussing the general nature and context of attacks, and all of these are tame, non-controversial claims.  He is cited nowhere in the article in a way connected with the advancement of a specific theory, so even if he was fringe (he's not), it really wouldn't be relevant.  And because he has no theory to be given any weight, due and undue weight are not relevant either. He's here primarily as a citation entries for that list -- if other of our sources (peer-review or not) speak to specific attacks, as many do, we add them to that list.  But if they don't and concentrate on other information concerning wolf attacks, it means nothing with regard to whether Graves should be listed.  Different sections, different sources, different contributions.  All hopefully informing on the same subject but giving different types of information that may be of use to our various readers.


 * I'm not sure what more can be said to you to explain this. Please, for the umpteenth time, if you have an image/understanding of the wolf as a non-dangerous animal, try an additive process; new sources which support that view and add more balance to the the article.  Stop trying to erode away the content you don't like but which is well supported by sources that are clearly very much meeting our standards of acceptance.  The lot of us could have done so much more with our time spent on this article with the time we've wasted discussing this latest clear-cut case in particular -- if only you weren't dead-set on taking this list down and removing other users' contributions (which we just simply aren't going to allow if done for the reasons you have suggested). Snow (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Current title of article is clear & logical, grammatically, regarding subject, verb and object.
 * Object is "wolf," an animal; verb is "attacks," a behavior. Subject is "humans" although it could be "deer," or what ever.
 * You assert topic encompasses more than verb actually denotes. But your assertion is illogical. Animal behavior is not more than a science. Perhaps changing title (and topic) of article can address the problem.


 * It is NOT controversial to say merely that F&W Service represents the mainstream in wildlife biology. You assert that a non-scientist (Graves) who contradicts mainstream science, using mainly unverifiable sources, is NOT a fringe theorist. This assertion goes somewhat beyond the illogical, & seems to sink to the irrational.
 * Giving equal treatment to fringe theories is not a sound approach. Excluding them may be also incorrect.


 * Also, you DEFINITELY need to study up on concept of "peer reviewed research." Your post above reveals a basic misunderstanding of this term.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * IP, what is so fringe about the claim that rabid wolves are dangerous, and that wolves habituated to people may also pose a threat? Please answer the question. You've been asked it enough times.Mariomassone (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What you may be looking for is Wikipedia article with different title: Something a bit like "Human Perceptions of Wolf Attacks on Humans in History and Politics"

But I don't know.
 * Questions about rabies and human habituation are best addressed by medicine and science .Current article cites a (really) peer-reviewed article that analyses more than 80 wolf attacks and includes topics you raise.
 * Question you avoid is whether Graves (non-scientist) is fringe theory. Text or summary of his recent speech to a "property rights" group is easily available via Google. In this, he explicitly challenges mainstream biology, based solely on unverifiable data of his book drawn from Russian sources.
 * How did people perceive rabies and "human habituation" and similar questions in 17 Century Europe, & etc., & how to include this? I doubt Graves or one or two other sources now included address this. We need to rely on sources that are more reliable and critical to address these problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My question is, why rely on Graves regarding these issues, since his is so clearly a fringe theorist, and there are adequate mainstream sources? Graves' book ought to constitute a minor point in a re-organized article that can include various political views that trade in science (including Graves, Geiset & etc.).

Subject is animal (wolf); verb is attack (behavior). Topic is logically animal behavior (a science). Graves is not a scientist.
 * Got a different interpretation?

76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You are clearly either unwilling or unable to understand that how we evaluate sources (and the content we draw from them) on this project is a very different matter from how you personally and subjectively analyze them. I, and others, have detailed above, with an absurd amount of detail and reference to every major policy relevant to the subject, how Graves does not qualify as fringe under any WIKIPEDIA POLICY.  We've explained that this is a general audience encyclopedia and that sources need not be peer review (though Graves is peer-reviewed; just what you mean by implying that he's not real peer-review is quite beyond me; he's been published in a peer-review journal -- not, for the last time, that it even matters).  You are clearly dedicated to forwarding a specific narrative on this subject and wish to remove whatever you can that is not consistent with that perspective, rather than trying to provide new information from valid sources that is consistent with your own take.  Even aside from ignoring each and every policy argument that is provided to educate you on how we operate here, you refuse to even provide a full argument for why you hold Graves to be fringe and further refuse to clarify just what your position is on whether the subject of this article (wolf attacks on humans) is even a real thing -- all evidence seems to suggest that you believe it to be a fiction, which makes your opinion by far the most "fringe" one here -- despite about a dozen attempts over the last month to get you to clarify your stance.  Normally it wouldn't matter of course -- content decisions are made solely on the basis of policy, not an editor's particular perspective -- but since you do not accept policy arguments and argue purely from subjective basis, the rest of us might be inclined to try to explain how one reconciles personal opinions with editing decisions, but we can't even do that because you won't speak forthrightly on the matter.  I for one am done engaging you, as there is clearly nothing to be gained from it.  If you make any edits that are blatantly inconsistent with policy, I will revert them.  If you happen to make a policy argument that has not already been addressed ad nauseum above, I'll respond, but I'm not holding my breath.  Others can do as they wish and be drawn around in circular arguments with you, but, as one can probably easily see from my terse tone here, I'm losing my ability to discuss these matters with you while holding firm to WP:Civility, and so will not attempt to explain these matters to you further.  I'll say only that you need to try to understand that your agenda in being here is probably not compatible with the policies of Wikipedia or the methods by which we operate here, and you are wasting your time if you think you are going to be able to delete well-sourced content solely on the basis that you disagree with it -- which really is your only argument, much as you'd like to disguise the fact by throwing around the term "fringe", despite the fact that you clearly do not understand this word as it applies to wikipedia policy, or arguably at all. Snow (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

One or Two Mistaken Editors

 * The one or two active editors on this article besides myself, may be operating at least partly, from a lack basic information: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)  (writer, me, can't remove bot signature).


 * That Graves (cited 30 times in this article!??) has published peer-reviewed research seems incorrect I get nothing in ProQuest and LexisNexus. Merely given his lack of science credentials, it is unlikely that your assertion would be correct.
 * It appears the only thing by Graves ever published is "Wolves in Russia," (by something called Detselig Enterprises Ltd. of Calgary, an obscure publisher.


 * Graves' book was indeed reviewed in a journal by a professor from Oklahoma (which severely questioned data). If you take this to mean "peer reviewed," then  you are again mistaken, this time about the term's basic definition.


 * One would also be yet again quite mistaken to question Wikipedia's accepted practice of favoring peer-reviewed research as source material in editing science articles. And you would be even further mistaken to suggest that this article--given its clearly stated topic--is something other than a science article. Moreover, formal credentials of an author are a legitimate means of evaluating a given source - particularly in science articles.


 * Graves, speaking before a "fringe" property rights group, using nothing more than the contents of his book, forthrightly & explicitly challenges the basic research of the F&W Service, which strives, quite successfully, to represent and define mainstream science. How, despite this, Graves himself might be considered mainstream, and not "fringe" (in the sense defined by Wikipedia), is logically impossible to conceive. (Assertions to contrary obviously mistaken.)


 * As I've said repeatedly, this article currently cites, among its sources, peer-reviewed research that analyzes many dozens of wolf attacks on humans, and that this material should receive much greater weight than Graves. In light of this view, it's unclear why you ask, indeed with some urgency, whether I believe wolf attacks on humans are a "real thing." (Question is, again, mistaken.)


 * Many or perhaps all of problems with Graves can also be applied to a few of the other sources cited.

This last point is very significant with regard to creating a more credible article.
 * This is an entirely reasonable goal for what is currently a problematic article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.95 (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

35.8.219.206 (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's much improved. But still very weak.
 * A fair amount of material here cites Linnell 2002. Consider that he prefaced it all with this quote:"...many of the reports come from times and places where modern forensic methods and standards of documentation do not exist. Neither have we checked original historical documents. Many of the accounts have been filtered through several layers of recording and interpretation before we have found them. There is therefore always a degree of undertainty around many of the cases here, expecially for the cases from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries."
 * Linnell considered these issues rather key to interpreting his (and similar) data, and are mentioned not at all in this article.
 * Linnell also describes one of Grave's central sources as controversial and biased (though he accepts much of the material, with the above provision.

35.8.219.233 (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you add a part about non-attacks on humans; wolf-human encounters which do result in attacks? You know, for balance. Chrisrus (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See also regarding Will Graves, in Appendix 14 of 1994 "Final Environmental Impact Statement, The reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho," a letter from Professor of zoology Dmitry I. Bibikov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, member of the IUCN Wolf Specialist Group, and his colleague, Dr. Nikita Ovsyanikov, also a member of the IUCN Wolf Specialist Group:


 * "We should note, that there were a lot of speculations and incorrect reports on harmful role of wolf in Soviet and Russian hunting magazines and books supported by former Ministry of Agriculture, but very few true research on that subject in Russia. Reading Mr. Graves' letter we have formed an impression, that his opinion is based mainly on highly speculative hunting magazine publications and/or on popular hunting books (Pavlov's for instance).....Generally speaking, Mr. Graves' letter is based speculative (sic) and arguing information from unidentified "Russian source" and, in any case, reflects the opinion of only one side in long and highly speculative discussion of role of wolves in Russia."
 * Ultimately, of course, Graves' point was rejected by the panel of mainstream scientists involved in the 1994 evt impact statement (easy to find).

35.8.219.233 (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's Graves' letter in question: http://prfamerica.org/2011/GravesLetter1993.html


 * And here's the referenced impact statement (see page 408) : http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/EIS_1994.pdf


 * How fortunate then that we're not using the unreferenced letter as a source. In any case, Bibikov states "We do not touch here speculations concerned with wolf attacks on people," which is the whole point of the article, not wolf diseases or surplus killing of ungulates. Mariomassone (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You (and a few others?) may well have views, that like Galileo, are out of mainstream science. This isn't at all the question.


 * To suggest that Bibikov, a highly respected scientist, does not try to utterly discredit Graves, would be very disingenuous.
 * Bibikov's discrediting of Graves is sole reason why Bibikov's letter was included in Appendix 14 of the (very mainstream science) federal report. And it's  deemed adequate reason to dismiss --and not include-- Graves' discredited letter in final document.


 * Graves' views (those of a non-scientist) were dismissed, two decades ago, by a panel of many academic scientists, who were employed by a US federal agency.
 * You suggest visiting "Property Foundation For America" to view Graves' letter, 20 years after it was written. PFA is clearly a very small and deeply fringe POLITICAL (certainly NOT a science) group. We do note their 2013 conference's keynote speaker was an ASTROLOGER, who appears to maintain his very own page here on Wikipedia, as Eric Francis. Stuff like this really gives Wikipedia a bad name.


 * Perhaps your actual point is completely unclear. You do mention the unreferenced letter, which FWS panel of mainstream scientists, did not deem worthy of inclusion in their statement. And you direct us to a fringe group. I cannot understand.


 * MY point, MERELY, is that Graves, as an information source, is demonstrably "fringe." Also that he should be treated as such, in article regarding animal behavior.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep your hat on. I directed you to the fringe group because unfortunately it was the only place I could find which included the Graves' letter mentioned by Ed Bangs. And Bibikov makes no mention whatsoever of wolf attacks on humans, which are the whole point of this article, and the only aspect of Graves' work covered here. Mariomassone (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleting material on talk page
I'm sorry but this IS a new topic.
 * I've recently brought to the attention of this talk page, that Graves, a key source in article, is deeply discredited in Appendix 14 of a significant and relevant document (see below). This is a legitimate matter that can be discussed, extensively, here on talk page, with an eye to evaluating Graves as a reliable source.
 * Yet my talk-page comments have been deleted, multiple times, by editors Chrisrus, Mariomassone, Slightsmile and Graham here. These are pretty much all the active editors here besides myself.
 * Potentially, these various deletions might be seen as bad-faith editing on each of their parts. I cannot say.


 * Document in question, the "Final Environmental Impact Statement, The reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho," I see as the most practically and historically significant document regarding wolves ever published in America, and perhaps even in the world, as far as wolf publications go: But I don't know. In any case, Appendix 14 of document severely discredits Graves.


 * Now with regard to somebody's comment above: We are directed to very small and fringe political group to view Graves' letter. It's found there --just maybe-- because Graves holds fringe views on science that obviously resonate with political views of group in question that carries his letter. Obviously, letter was deemed unworthy of inclusion in Impact statement for reasons discussed in Appendix 14


 * Graves (due to his sources) was long ago decisively rejected by a well-respected group, chosen to represent mainstream science. His sources for the letter in question (so far as may be learned) are precisely the same as those for his book. (Yes, the letter concerns rabies; an aspect of his book.)


 * In the appendix, Bibikov (et al.) of the Russian Academy of Science, raises some of same concerns I mention well above, regarding Graves' sources: a nearly complete reliance on hunting magazines and hunting writers from Soviet-era media (apparently sponsored by state Agriculture). Your response, also above, to my merely personal concern about sources was "so what?" I cannot answer this adequately. Now one can say that Bibikov's scientific credentials are very clear and impressive, and he utterly discounts the reliability of these sources.


 * The comparatively excellent Linnell, for example, notes, in an extended discussion, "a degree of uncertainty" regarding many of the reported attacks he (Linnell) nonetheless cites, and which are cited in this article. (Indeed, Linnell accepts Pavlov, one of the sources discounted by the Russian scientists.) Pavlov is nonetheless described by Linnell as "biased," "controversial" and as a non-scientist.
 * Regardless of Linnell, why are sources creditably identified as biased, controversial and non-scientific, acceptable in a Wikipedia article on animal behavior without the least bit of caution or qualification expressed to reader?


 * The great difficulty with Wolf attacks on humans is that all the reported attacks are presented as equally certain. I suggest that all the reports may be, in some sense, equally valid, but not equally certain, and it would be an improvement were this communicated to the reader (as per concerns outlined by Linnell).

76.250.61.95 (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

NPOV problem
The following does not belong in the article as currently written and especially not in the lead paragraph. "In the case of the Soviet Union, information on wolf attacks was actively suppressed in order to facilitate the systematic disarmament of the peasantry." It reads like advocacy, and as written is more fitting for a student magazine or a blog than for our project where we have a requirement for neutral point of view. --John (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I could see where you might think that, but according to the available WP:RSes available on the topic, that's exactly what happened. In the time of communism, reports of wolf attacks were not made public.  Only after the fall of communism were they made public.  The stated reason was that such reports would impede their rural disarmament program.  It may sound strange to you, but that's what happened. Chrisrus (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Censorship in the Soviet Union is not a controversial issue, and is well attested in numerous sources.Mariomassone (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Bibikov et al., a stronger source than Geist for question at hand, actually claim the opposite; that the Soviet Ministry of Agriculture sponsored false reports of wolf attacks. Conceivably, both contradictory assertions are correct.
 * Perhaps the statement in question would benefit from balance and due to ambiguity of available sources, should be de-emphasized.
 * 35.8.219.233 (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Chrisrus (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Was it one of these? Chrisrus (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Our list requires an explanation, and current sentence sums up its intention quite perfectly; a citation would greatly improve the sentence. But I can't find a source.
 * 76.250.61.95 (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Which list? Which sentence? Chrisrus (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Wolf
it contains things in the article wolf Creeper919 (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As you might be saying above, Grey_wolf already exists and is pretty long already, so what is there left to merge into there from here? Grey_wolf is basically full, but if you would like to add more from this article into Grey_wolf or otherwise use this article to improve that, by all means, go ahead.  But most of this article won't fit well.


 * I think what you really want done is to delete this article on the grounds that that Grey_wolf makes this article unnecessary. If so, Deletion process can help you. Chrisrus (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Yes, it includes info taken from the wolf article and expands upon it, so no, it doesn't warrant a merger. I don't think the rarity of wolf attacks on humans is justification enough to delete or merge the article, considering Shark attacks are also rare (along with all other animal attacks) but warrant their own articles. If certain people think its retention warrants starting an article on rabbit or rat attacks, they're free to do so by themselves. Let's just see how long they last. Regarding the bloatedness of the listing, I've already taken that into account and am in the process of making a new, more readable one on my profile (not sandbox) page. Mariomassone (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as there are enough independent stories to make this topic notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support merge. Wolves attack humans, rarely, & always have done so, and it certainly has some significance. Rats have attacked and perhaps even directly killed many, many more humans than wolves, over time. But in the big picture, perhaps it doesn't merit a separate article. What about rabbits? death by motorcycle?

76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support it's a mish-mash of stuff with an indiscriminate list embedded in it. Anything worth keeping can easily be put into the main article. --John (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

In the same way, several other articles, including Coyote attacks on humans, Dingo attack, Dog attack, Bear attack, Tiger attack and many more have reached the point in their development where splitting them off from their main articles naturally happened.
 * Oppose This article was rightly split from Wolf.
 * Comment It looks like you used twinkle to make this merge request, which broke the redirect on the Wolf page. Normally, it redirects to Gray Wolf. I've fixed all of this mess now, but be careful in the future. :]  Jdc1197  - (talk · userpage · contributions)  16:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In the future, should the corresponding sections grow too large for their articles, Elephant attack, Hyena attack, and so on, will be created.

This process is progress for Wikipedia, and this proposal blocks project improvement.

Instead, this article should be developed to the point where it can be further split. Wolf attacks on humans in North America would be great, for example, or Wolf attacks in India have more than enough WP:RSes for potentially excellent articles, and Wolf attacks on livestock is a topic many experts have published about.

Seen in light of these greater trends for the project, this proposal can't constitute project improvement. Chrisrus (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The list is far too detailed. Do you accept that? --John (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Too detailed for what? In many of the attacks, we have few details beyond that they occurred.  In those cases, more details, if they could be found and properly cited, would constitute improvement.  Sometimes we don't know the people's names, or how the attack came about.  People researching wolf attacks should be interested in and benefit from knowing more, not less, about the attacks.  We are trying to decrease ignorance about this subject, not increase it.  Chrisrus (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:SUMMARY and WP:NOR. --John (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Each entry on the list is a summary of the information in the available WP:RSes about each attack or group of attacks. Chrisrus (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Point of order

 * This is not really a merge request, it's a deletion request. There's nothing to merge that isn't in there already. If mere deletion is what is being requested, that procedure should be followed. Chrisrus (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Right Chris: perhaps as you say, there's "nothing to merge that isn't in there already," may be fine argument for merger -- that this article is redundant.
 * As you know, there is plenty in this article that is not in that one. What there isn't any of is room there to merge all of this here. Chrisrus (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Moreover, one could (John might; I might not) make a case that the article "synthesizes" various published sources. A number of the sources include lists of reported attacks, but Wikipedia here combines various sources and creates a unique, never-before published stand-alone list.

35.8.219.233 (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Improper Deletion Procedure
This is not a merge request, it's a deletion request being done outside of our deletion procedures. It is improper. If you want to delete this article, follow deletion procedure.

Maps
I've just noticed that the List of fatal bear attacks in North America article has a map section pinpointing the locations of bear-caused fatalities. I think this feature could be useful here, though I'm unfamiliar with the procedure on how to form such maps. There are plenty of maps on the Linnel and Cagnolaro documents that could be used as references. Mariomassone (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea. Take the maps to Graphics Lab/Map workshop, they do great work.  Tell them what you want; try to WP:USEFEWWORDS even if it comes off choppy; some people there make their requests more complicated than necessary.  Put it on your watchlist in case they reply with questions.  I bet it'll take a week, and then they will want your feedback.  Be sure to send them wikithanks and a wikibeer or some such when it's done.  Graphics Lab/Map workshop is an amazing resource.  We should request one for other animal attack articles, too.  Chrisrus (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Korean Wolf Attacks
You are right. That paper listed those as attacks, not fatal ones. Of the cases mentioned specifically, in only one of them was it mentioned that the victim did not survive. In others, a child simply had her ears ripped off or somesuch, but, thankfully, survived. Reason dictates, however, that many more of these attacks might have been fatal, we don't know from this source alone. I think that the total number of confirmed attacks in Korea during that period should still be included, because just to mention the one confirmed fatal attack would leave a less clear picture of what the citation says than to tell the readers about them all. Chrisrus (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

New list format
Just experimenting. This list is similar to the one in the leopard attack article.

Looks great. Chrisrus (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Clearly, these lists violate the section of Wikipedia policy on "original research" that concerns "synthesis."
 * You draw on various discrete sources to create a new & unique unit of information. How each of these many sources might variously view Wikipedia's resulting product of original research, one cannot say.
 * Sticking to letter of this policy may occasionally produce undesirable outcomes.
 * Yet my assertion that it's a "policy violation" is demonstrably correct.
 * Whether this core policy ought to be applied here, I cannot say just now with certainty.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Summarizing information taken from WP:RSes is all we do. It's what Wikipedia is.  Wikipedia is one big summary of info in WP:RSes.  What Wikipedians do is summarize information taken from WP:RSes. Welcome aboard.  Chrisrus (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If an editor were to gather what he considered every primary report of a wolf attack in the United States and then stated, "There were 8 wolf attacks in the United States in 1954", this would be original research. If an editor were to take a secondary source which explicitly stated, "There were 8 wolf attacks in the United States in 1954", he could quote that and it would not be original research. If an editor were to find many such secondary sources for different countries and make a list of them, that would not be original research. Generally speaking, I don't like these lists. but make sure you know what original research is before you start complaining about it. Some of this is skirting on the edge of original research I and would prefer it not be included, but some of it is clearly acceptable. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

76.250, the policies apply to statements and implied statements/relationships, not to the broader "unit of information". A list does not per se violate anything. Now, a summary of a list is a different story. It could be summarizaiton or wp:or / wp:synth. Wikipedia is technically hypocritical (most of Wikipedia is summarization which technically violates wp:or / wp:synth) until you understand that where it works, it goes by the defacto rule for summarization. If the material is unchallenged, it's summarization, if it challenged, it's wp:or / wp:synth. Regardless, if an editor were to draw a conclusion about total number of wolf attacks from their compilation of incidents, IMHO such is not borderline, such is deep into wp:synth. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis is drawing undue conceptual conclusions from sources. Chrisrus (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming that you're talking about wp:synthesis, that is not a correct statement of such, especially the "undue" qualifier.   But before we go any further, we should clarify what the question is.   I don't see it anywhere in the above.   North8000 (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The list is headed "This is a list of known fatal wolf attacks."
 * Known to whom?
 * There is no source cited (nor any that exists) that makes such a claim about our particular list. In effect, our list is newly created knowledge -- original research.
 * One might safely say researcher X has compiled list A, while researcher Y has compiled list B. But no source suggests whether researcher X would accept researcher Y's list, nor visa versa (there is reason to believe they would not.)
 * For example, Linnell, cited on list, says there is "a degree of uncertainty" about all reports on his list. So in his case, at least, it's knowledge about which there is uncertainty. Each researcher, or source, has different aims and applies different standards.


 * Partly because of this varied criteria, to simply merge them into a unique and original list for Wikipedia is perhaps also mixing apples with oranges and calling the result pears. It's a sloppy business at best.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If you take issue with the header, then it can simply be removed or reworded. It's redundant in any case. And I think this is an opportunity for you to take some positive action and use the 'note' option on the list to add Linnel's disclaimer. Mariomassone (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say just change the heading to just "Wolf attacks on humans" North8000 (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Can we make it sortable? How about a final total; how many FWAOHs do we have here, altogether? Chrisrus (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If the reader is very better at mental addition than me, s/he will be then know the total. Readers like me, however, will be wishing that we'd found some way to incorporate a total into the format of this chart.  Chrisrus (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well let me add this:
 * In any case, our list certainly requires an integral explanation representing its content to readers. (For example, "This is a list") And this explanation would of course require a citation.
 * Yet since our original list is unique to Wikipedia, citations regarding it are unavailable. (What source or sources, accepts this unitary list as presented?)
 * Stuff without citations should be deleted. As should products of original research. Since explanation is integral and would have no citation, entire list could be deleted.
 * If you wish to call our list a "compilation" of sources, fine. I would fully agree.
 * Whether this is "original research," a compilation is product of lots of research, in this case, definitely original to Wikipedia editors, as our list appears nowhere else.
 * There are other lists, created by reliable sources & if you like, these can be presented as discrete works of non-original Wikipedia research. (Though it would be cumbersome and perhaps confusing and "non-encyclopedic" stuff, as some would say. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Summarizing info from the article in chart form is not original research by synthesis. Chrisrus (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 76.250.61.95, you have several things mixed up in the policy applications/interpretations that you are presenting. And you seem to be arguing in different directions.    You are arguing against the common and accepted practice of creating lists.  But you also seem to be arguing for insertion of an arguably overreaching summary statement to be inserted as a poison pill. Sincerely, 11:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk)
 * Although I offer a fairly simple, step-by-step logical argument, based on "policy" as written, the answers so far, is that A) it's not original research, and B) my argument is "mixed up."


 * A counter argument that is comparably systematic and logical to mine hasn't been stated.  Perhaps such arguments are unavailable.


 * Only a kind of "Wikipedia Priest" can fully grasp this policy, and why under it, unique research products are sanctioned, and such mystic understanding is ineffable. Discussion closely based on written statement of "OR" in this case is pure folly.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's what I think is a really good example:
 * There's another spin-off article called "Criticism of Noam Chomsky", where we collect notable ones. A user introduced an item which he described as "his" C. of N.C. It was very well cited.  He had lots of good citations on each statement, which he laid out in the form of an argument.  His argument, he said, unique to him, USERNAMESUCHANDSUCH.  Now, if he gets to do that, can I not also introduce my own in the same way?  And couldn't you?  And anyone else who had one?  That slippery slope looked treacherous to us.  We deleted his C. of N.C. on the grounds that it was his, not that of some Shfamous McNotable.  If he gets it published in an WP:RS, or finds it published by someone else, then ok, that's different, by all means do add it to the collection.
 * That is the reason we maintain the guideline "no original research by synthesis." We have to have that rule, but it's a very problematic rule so there's tons in the guideline clarifying what it means and how it should and should not be used and what it does and does not mean.
 * Included among all that is What_SYNTH_is_not. The specific clarification that I think applies in this particular case is What_SYNTH_is_not, which supports the point I keep trying to make, which is that if summary were original research by synthesis, then pretty much all we do here would be disallowed.  Try making a contribution to Wikipedia without summarizing; you will see what I mean; summarizing is what it's all about.  Chrisrus (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've asked for a simple, point-by point rebuttal to my narrow, simple, highly specific and policy based observation; that our unique "list" here is in some significant sense, original research. Answers so far are, basically, 1) "no, you're wrong," and 2) "see policy."


 * But more broadly, I very much like direction of recent discussion, in that it explores idea of using reports that rely on modern, forensic and scientific information, rather than the whims of whoever may be relaying some obscure report.


 * By implication, this most recent thrust seems to accept that there are significant distinctions to be drawn (but which are not, currently) among the myriad reports that are currently presented as of equal certainty.


 * This shortcoming is the crux of my larger point. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case I'd offer a simplified summary of all the rules: Always focus on encyclopedia improvement, for the benefit of the likely reader. Always be reasonable about the rules and everything.  Rules and guidelines are there to help toward that end, but rules can't anticipate every eventuality.  Nothing bad for the project should be allowed, nothing good for the project be disallowed because of some technicality in the rules.  The reason behind the rule is the important thing.  Where that reason is not present or something, the rule has no purpose and should not apply. If what is in the sources makes no sense because it contradicts or otherwise can't possibly be true or something, it should be dealt with reasonably with the end goal in mind.  That's about it.
 * It's not really clear what you are trying to do. It seems you want to delete the article, but you have not started a deletion process.  Why not?  This is a place to discuss article improvement, only.  This is the wrong forum to discuss article destruction.  Chrisrus (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

On Linnell, et. al., (2002)
The fear of wolves: A review of wolf attacks on humans. NINA Norsk institutt for naturforsking Oppdragsmelding: 731:1-65. We do come back to Linnell. Search his first document for the term "forensic" and you'll find his discussion of how nearly all the reports he includes lack modern standards of confirmation. Hence his caveat that there is "a degree of uncertainty" regarding the authenticity of nearly all reports in his document.


 * Linnell, not shy about reporting large mass of available history and reports from primitive regions of the world, applied, or at least mentioned, an accepted standard of scientific skepticism (in provided context) to his document. Such context is utterly lacking in the article at hand. All published sources are equal here.


 * And lack of such context is my seemingly insurmountable problem.


 * Many intelligent readers will immediately sense this lack of discrimination: not based on my argument, but merely on its face.

They will dismiss entire content of article (and all the good work it represents). It can be improved to avoid this. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You've added some very weird headline above that distorts discussion.
 * I commend you for refraining from earlier practice here, of deleting comments that displease.
 * To answer (basically, yet again) the question in your headline: In my view, the authors you list DO meet the low threshold set by Wikipedia policy regarding "reliable sources."
 * Very well, then unless someone wants to discuss it more, I consider this topic closed. Chrisrus (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)