Talk:Wolf attack/Archive 4

Details that readers want
The Cook County Coyote report said something about coyote attacks that is also relevant to this article:
 * “Although we were able to gather some useful insights from our research of coyote attacks within the United States and Canada, we were limited by the source of our data. Records of coyote attacks throughout the U.S. and Canada are often incomplete, inaccessible, and… contained few details about the coyote attack…..We feel that a standardized reporting system of coyote attacks throughout the U.S. and Canada would be extremely helpful for further informing the details and circumstances of coyote attacks on humans, and for preventing future attacks.”

The same might be said about wolf attacks. We should endeavor to provide important details to the page user. We should definitely provide as many of the kinds of details that users can be predicted to be interested in. For this reason, at the very least, we should not have replaced the previous chart with the summary chart, but merely supplemented it. I plan to wait an appropriate amount of time for input, but plan to restore it as soon as appropriate alongside the summary chart for the sake of the reader. Chrisrus (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In the case of coyote attacks, I’ve noticed that experts are careful where possible to record the time of day, but that doesn’t seem to be a priority with dog attack reports.
 * Wolf, coyote, and dog reports tend to focus on evidence or lack of same for rabies, but bear attack reports don’t appear to be interested.
 * Wolf and bear attacks tell us whether the animal was captive or wild, but that’s not a common question with coyotes.
 * But in most cases, we want to know where, when, and to whom the attack occurred. And the name, age, and sex of the victim.
 * They want to know the immediate context, events leading up to and following the attack.
 * How did the attack go down, and what injuries were sustained in the process?
 * Unlike dog attacks, wild animal attack researchers look for proof that the animal had been fed by or otherwise habituated to humans.
 * All tend to be interested in the final fate of the animal and wounds sustained by the victim.


 * An alternative to the infobox could be a section analogous to the leopard attack article's "Notable maneaters", with only notable cases included (those that became subject to folklore, became media sensations or were exceptionally well documented by biologists). The reason the previous chart was done away with was pretty much due to the Moriceau source, which contains well over 3000 instances of fatalities. The ones that had been included were only a quarter of that amount, and to include them all would have inflated the article to tedious levels, as well as take more free time than most editors have available to them. Mariomassone (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. "Histoire du méchant loup 3 000 attaques sur l'homme en France" contains too many attacks for us to list them all here.  The list was too long.  Could we not consolidate his attacks into one or just a few list items, or some such other solution that would allow us to save all that detail, all that good information that is now lost to Wikipedia?  How about splitting it off into one large list?  Anything short of losing all that good information.
 * Maybe I'll go dig it out of the History, post it here, collapse it so it won't disrupt, and then we can work on it here? Chrisrus (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

List of fatal wolf attacks worldwide
Despite any automatically generated disclaimers to the contrary, feel free to edit:

This is a list of known fatal wolf attacks worldwide by century in reverse chronological order.

1700s

 * I'm sticking to my prior suggestion, which was that we forgo a list altogether and simply have a section dedicated to notable man-eaters, like on the leopard attack article. Mariomassone (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Fatal Wolf Attacks
What can be done with the above list? Apart from the above list, we have 3,272 French attacks from 1580–1830. If we dealt with each one in the same amount of detail as, for example, List of fatal dog attacks in the United States, Fatal bear attacks in North America, or Coyote attacks on humans, it would make any List of all fatal wolf attacks known to Wikipedia very long indeed. I have not read the source personally - I don't even read French - but it's over 600 pages in hardcover. So potentially we could have the 3,272 items to fill in the dates, names, places, times of day, and so on as we do on those other articles. This is a daunting task, so rather than do that we just summarized the whole thing. However, in doing so Wikipedia lost a lot of information that researchers could use to do some good.

So here we are. Can we maintain a List of Fatal Wolf Attacks given 3,000 French wolf attacks in just this one book. Readers and others might benefit, perhaps greatly, by studying these detailed lists of such events. The experts have asked us to maintain certain facts so they can study them and more easily notice patterns and such so they can understand the phenomenon. So we should decide what to do because our job is to collect the facts they are asking for and presenting them in the way they want us to. Chrisrus (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * When there is news of a notable Coyote attack, we have a list to collect the basic facts about each event. We keep and improve similar lists for bears, dingoes, dogs, coyotes, cougars, leopards, and so on and so forth.  But with the list above list removed, we no longer have a place to collect the basic facts about individual wolf attacks anymore.  All we can do is add number one to a total now.


 * This isn't good because readers use these lists to do research, maybe even important research. An expert may notice something important, maybe a pattern or insight or question.  It's possible that harm is avoided by maintaining these animal attack lists.  So this list above should be restored to Wikipedia somehow.  We could create a separate article or break it up into several articles, or with an proper appropriate range and scope, or some other solution to the 3,272 French attacks. Please I request comment.

How best to restore the list above to Wikipedia, given the problems described above? Chrisrus (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Giving a summary of the information is just what WP:RAWDATA point #3 encourages, because Wikipedia is supposed to be like an encyclopedia, giving an introduction and overview of a topic rather than all available data about it. The article tells readers about the Moriceau book; those who wish to see its entire contents can consult the book itself. There's a sister site, Wikisource, where works in the public domain may be uploaded in their entirety. However, the book was published in 2008 so it may be copyrighted. The existence of the book could support the notability of a stand-alone list article. I see that someone has tagged the "Six hundred years of wolf attacks worldwide; 1400 to 2013" section. Creating one or more stand-alone lists from that material may be desirable. WP:STANDALONE is a guideline about making such lists. &mdash; rybec   21:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding! :-)
 * You are absolutely right. That's why we will not be adding the 3,272 French attacks to the list.
 * Now: What do we do with the list?
 * Why don't we create a separate article, "List Wolf Attacks" or some such, and put this list there along with an intro noting there were also these 3,272 French attacks from 1580–1830 which are not included. Chrisrus (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"Because attacks are unusual and sometimes poorly documented, wolves' danger to humans is debated."
This statement in the lead, Because attacks are unusual and sometimes poorly documented, wolves' danger to humans is debated." is false. I'd remove it, as it not cited, but it's not in the body, it's in the lead. The lead is supposed to include a fair summary of each section, and the statement "Because attacks are unusual and sometimes poorly documented, wolves' danger to humans is debated." is a fair summary of the "Quality of Data and Debate" section added from an IP address in East Lansing by some guy who doesn't think wolf attacks are real after the overhaul by Mario.  It contradicts most of the rest of the article and is not true.  There is no debate among experts that wolves can be deadly dangerous to humans.  So I'll remove it when I along with the Quality of Data and Debate section, which I've already explained above, scroll up.  Chrisrus (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and do so. In fact, I'd replace the North American and Russian section with my earlier revisions, as shown in the link I provided earlier.Mariomassone (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious that it is wildly unfair to suggest that I "don't think wolf attacks are real." I've done some carefully sourced work on this article.


 * I've objected to some very sloppy sources, some of which are now removed by others.


 * Unlike Chrisrus, I don't believe that "scientists supress information." Rather, I understand that science aims at verifiable truth. I do believe, however, there is a degree of POV operating among several editors who tend to control content of this article & who have demonstrated a weak grasp of good sourcing.


 * End result is, unfortunately, that informed and educated readers will view credibility of article as very low. A wasted effort for everyone. Too bad about domination by these few editors.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Lists of attacks
Huge lists do not belong to already huge articles. They are in separate pages, shown in "see also" section:


 * List of wolf attacks
 * List of non fatal wolf attacks in North America

By the way, the 75% empty table IMO is not a good idea, but I don't have a better opinion. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please pursue your huge proposed change by discussing and trying to gain a consensus instead of trying to edit war it in.  Anything that you do without that and by edit warring will remain illegitimate.    North8000  (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there is no such rule in wikipedia. Anyone can edit without asking anyone's permission. Anyway, here is a discussion. Now, where are your objections? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Your post did not address my post and so we're in the same spot. Discussing working to war in a huge contested change is totally unrelated to the non-existent "need permission to edit Wikipedia."  North8000  (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I actually think this isn't such a bad idea. The list here could be moved and replaced with a "notable man-eaters" section like on the leopard attack article. Furthermore, the "wolf attacks in America" could also include the two fatalities on record.Mariomassone (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * My angle is more for proper process.  Got to "R" in a WP:BRD in a huge change, and then instead of discussing, moved to warring it in.   North8000  (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. As they are of special interest and the list itself isn't that long, List of wolf attacks in North America could be removed from this article and created. It could merge all attacks, fatal or otherwise.  Pretty much any wolf attack that occurs in North America is interesting to researchers simply because it happened there.  That way, this article could just maintain the summary and all detailed lists could just be just linked to here in an appropriate way. Chrisrus (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on the idea. Again, my concern was/is process.  North8000  (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Marioo and Chris have long record here of POV editing.
 * North8000 raises good points. Previously I have tried some careful and informed NPOV edits, but they have been killed by Chris & Mario.
 * Bringing credibility and balance to this article is a lost game. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)  reformatted by Hoary (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC) 

Article dominated by Sarah Palin-type POV
Is a truly hopeless situation. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)  reformatted by Hoary (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC) 
 * That's it, your antagonistic, uncivil and just thoroughly disruptive behaviour here has been tolerated for long enough; I'm getting an admin involved. Snow (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I'm an admin (not that I need to be). In 2008, Sarah Palin "[had an environmental policy so toxic it would make the incumbent, George Bush, blush]". Similarly uncomplimentary comments about various aspects of Palin are commonplace. Aligning your opponents with Palin is, arguably, slander by association. (And it's not a way of persuading people.) So cut it out. -- Hoary (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting
Here is an explanation of how to format talk in talk pages. It's easy to understand. Following it increases your chances of being persuasive. Conspicuously and repeatedly failing to follow it adds to others' annoyance with you and makes you less persuasive. -- Hoary (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Accents in English
Excuse the apparent digression, but I'll keep it short. When I was young, I didn't speak with an accent and neither did my parents. People from elsewhere in the nation, as well of course as foreigners: they were the ones who spoke with accents.

In the same way, I have no opinion about wolf attacks on humans: on the contrary, I'm entirely neutral. So far as you disagree with me, it's you who has a bias.

The above is of course is more or less horseshit. I'll fess up: until less than 24 hours ago, I hadn't given a moment's thought to wolf attacks (if any) on humans. But I come to this with my own prejudices. I hope that my mind is flexible enough to entertain contradictory evidence. OTOH, I'll view this evidence with suspicion: just where was it published, and why should I take it seriously?

If I bring evidence to the table, then of course I expect you too to view it suspiciously. You may accept it; you may reject it. If you reject it, I may privately entertain anything from a suspicion to near-certainty that you are blinkered, that you're a moron, etc. But I'll think very hard before uttering my diagnosis. Less because of civility (or worry that I might be blocked), more because it's not going to work.

Oh yes, and I realize that I did (and do) speak with an accent. - Hoary (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Article continues to be dominated by narrow POV

 * I put lots of work into responsible attempt to improve this article. Lots of reasonable material has since been removed.


 * As it stands, any modestly intelligent and informed person can recognize this article as a kind of screed, lacking credibility. This is unfortunate, as the topic is potentially enlightening.

But of course, I won't be trespassing here. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Amazing! Six weeks later the same two editors are still obsessively tinkering with their POV edits. They are definitely the "owners" of this little corner of Wikipedia. I wish them well -- but woe to any who try to bring objective standards into play.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't seen any debate here, nor highly active editing, nor any specifics with the above post.  North8000  (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Random "notable cases" removed
Replaced with links to articles and the list. --Niemti (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Niemti's edits
Seeing as Niemti has not taken up the offer of resolving the current dispute over the "Notable cases" section in the talk page, I'll start it off in order to avoid a further edit war. Mariomassone (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe just look a section above. --Niemti (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's your argument? I don't see any attempt at discussion or justification, just a declaration. I'm contacting other active contributors to this page and see what their take is. Mariomassone (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course. It's a declaration of obvious. --Niemti (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Niemti and thank you for your interest in improving this article. I noticed that you have added more notable cases, and some illustrations and other good edits.  However, why have you removed all the annotations?  Shouldn't we have a brief description of each on this page, so that readers may get just the basic facts about each without leaving this page, while still maintaining the option to hyperlink to learn more at each of the articles? It seems to me better that way. Chrisrus (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can be added; there were only 4 and it was basically the same descriptions as in list of wolf attacks. --Niemti (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you be intersted in annotating the list yourself? Just a quick summary of each article is all that's needed.  For those four that had had annotations, feel free to simply restore the deleted annotations, and, as always, feel free to edit.  Chrisrus (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Geist, Valerius
This gentleman has been judged by a Canadian court as unqualified as an "expert witness" regarding wolf attacks. To judge from the tone of his writings on wolves, which tend to appear in hunting magazines rather than science journals, he has a very unpleasant axe to grind with the wildlife biology establishment.

Another prime source for this article, who is heavily endorsed by Geist, is pretty much a crank.

It's quite possible to approach this topic in an objective way without resorting to these characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.22.83.2 (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This gentleman has been judged by a Canadian court as unqualified as an "expert witness" regarding wolf attacks. Interesting. Do you have a source for this? -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I notice that an entire paragraph in the article Valerius Geist is devoted to this, but that it's unsourced. Incidentally, which is the other "prime source" you're talking of? -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Geist citations are only used twice, and both times regarding recent history, not wolf behaviour. Mariomassone (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2015
Needs protecting from persistent vandalism by IP users 2602:306:BC37:4DF0:28F5:C839:7A89:40F1, 2602:306:BC37:4DF0:E532:970D:19E9:2E94, 2602:306:BC37:4DF0:14BD:8D5B:513D:7476 and 107.195.116.223, all probably the same person. The only comment given in justification for his/her edits was "I'm right; you're wrong fuckers!!! Fuck y'all" Mariomassone (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ requests for page protection must be made at WP:Requests for page protection - however, with only 2 reverts since 14 November, this is unlikely to be granted unless the vandalism increases. -  Arjayay (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)