Talk:List of wolf attacks in North America/Archive 1

Archive 1

This article should get deleted

The creator attempted a massive (and bad-idea) split of another article without discussing. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• And why is it bad? Huge lists are separate everywhere in wikipedia. And I did not split any article text. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Any huge change that you try to do via edit warring instead of discussing will remain illegitimate. North8000 (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, nyone can edit without asking anyone's permission. Anyway, here is a discussion. Now, where are your objections? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:24, 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) 18:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

On mentioning victims by name

WP:BLP applies to mentions on any page. Please read Privacy of names (WP:BLPNAME) concerning individuals identified for single events, which in part states: "Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

David Lawrence

In the David Lawrence entry, the pilot is named as both Gavin and Galvin. Which is correct? 68.156.95.34 (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Most recent attack

I am not very experienced with Wikipedia editing but I found one(or two) attacks to be missing. This article (in French) describes it. http://quebec.rougefm.ca/Blog/info-astral/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10581697 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.37.216 (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I'm looking into it...Chrisrus (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The "Predatory/Agonistic/etc" column on this list should be modified or deleted

The "Predatory/Agonistic/etc" column on this list should be deleted and/or replaced with a column indicating only whether or not there is strong evidence the wolf was rabid, injured or otherwise unhealthy. Determining exactly what went on inside a mute animal's head–even in incidents with excellent documentation–and accurately distinguishing whether the wolf or wolves that attacked humans were defending their territory, obtaining a meal, "prey testing" or simply killing for sport, is impossible. When person climbs a tree with wolves surrounding them, trying to nip, does it matter why they are there? If a person beats off a pack of wolves and survives does that mean the wolves were not hunting for a meal? If wolves chase a person up a tree does that mean they were hungry or did the individual simply trigger an instinctive chase by running away? There is no way to know. Therefore, the determination for that column primarily reflects the personal biases of the editors and/or scientific "experts" cited. Wikipedia should stick to known facts and eliminate opinions that are misrepresented as facts. Backwardlook (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

When sources such as McNay (http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=wolfrecovery) so categorize an attack, it should go in this column. When it isn't so clear, as with many old news reports, instead of "unknown", convention is to use "n.a.", as no expert like McNay has so classified the attack. This column is also useful to distinguish captive animal attacks, which seem to be a different enough phenomenon to be so set apart from those involving wild animals, as we do on the bear attack article, or those news reports that indicate no clear doubt that the animal was rabid. You are right, however, we should not catagorize attacks as agontistic or predetory ourselves, just something clearly obvious, such as a captive animal attack. We should leave such things to experts and simply put "n.a.", because even if we are experts in real life, we are here to simply be Wikipedians who report what sources say and only interpret the most obvious and reasonable. Chrisrus (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very helpful.Backwardlook (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Is "Mexican" a "potentially offensive" word?

Recently the word "Mexican" was deleted on the grounds that calling a person "Mexican" is "potentially offensive".

I undid the edit on the grounds that calling a person "Mexican" is not "potentially offensive".

Then, the edit was reverted, but this time no grounds were given.

I will wait a short while for a reply, and then I will restore the word "Mexican" on the grounds that calling a person "Mexican" is not "potentially offensive".

Chrisrus (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Chrisrus. The incident in question occurred in Mexico and the victims were native to that nation. I don't know what else to call people who live in Mexico. I can't imagine why people who live in Mexico would be offended at being called Mexicans. I've never met any that were offended by that. I used the word Mexican because the cited source was an American traveling in Mexico and I want it to be clear the victims were natives, and not confused with the foreign research party that was passing through. Also, this is the only report I've found so far of fatal attacks that occurred in Mexico and so far the only reported fatal attack by the Mexican wolf species that I have come across. My vote is for keeping the word Mexican in. Backwardlook (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting case

Today I Learned about this recent incident: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/player.html?autoPlay=true&clipIds=2672886868,2672886812 It starts at 14:39. If it can be properly termed an "attack", it should be included. Chrisrus (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll listen to it.

I am not sure how to handle that. It is on the edge, not quite an attack. If we include non-biting, stalking incidents as attacks we'll have a much longer list. Perhaps a third list specifically for non-biting, stalking incidents such as this and the John Young incident would be appropriate. What we have now is a different era of wolf presence than historically. Before the extirpation of wolves, most people were armed, did not have endangered species protections, and there was a lot more open space for wolves. Today, we are building wolf populations in a setting and culture that is significantly different than how our ancestors lived. It may be useful and educational to have a list of stalking incidents and antagonistic non-attack behaviors so that these incidents may be studied for patterns of behavior. It seems that today, most people do not have realistic expectations for wolf encounters because the wolves are new, learning about us and will adapt to our modern ways and lifestyles, especially as they fill in available habitat. And there will be more and more of them. If there is some reference where a reader could look it may help them learn how best to behave if they are ever in a tense situation with a wolf. That said, there are quite a few people in the Mexican wolf recovery zone that say that the wolves have stalked children walking to the bus stops. That is why they built the cages for the kids to wait inside. The list could be come very long if we include non-biting incidents on the page. I don't know how long it could end up becoming. I would like to know your ideas.Backwardlook (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistent order of presentation

The chronological order of fatal attacks is descending and the chronological order for nonfatal incidents is ascending. This method of presentation is inconsistent. It seems that the most recent incidents should be presented first in both lists. I'm willing to do the editing but would like a second opinion first.Backwardlook (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Let's look at other such articles and think about pros and cons of doing it one way or the other.

Dingo attack lists from newest to oldest.

List of wolf attacks; newest to oldest.

Coyote attack; oldest to newest

List of fatal dog attacks in the United States; oldest to newest

List of fatal bear attacks in North America; newest to oldest.

I could go on, but I think we already see there is no clear standard. We could look more, however, for some clue as to why one way was favored over the other in different cases.

Newest to oldest has the merit of encouraging people to pop in and easily check for recent attacks. Also, readers might be more interested in recent attacks because what happened recently may matter more than what happened a long time ago.

Oldest to newest has the merit of reading more like most narratives; chronological order. We don't normally put the last chapter first.

What do you think, and why? Chrisrus (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that newest to oldest would be the most interesting format for most readers. Backwardlook (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That'd be fine, IMHO. Chrisrus (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

John Young "attack"

Is the John D. Young encounter an attack? As written, it sounds like more of a menasing or something, the wolves came near and showed their teeth. Chrisrus (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I will remove it. Seems there could be a category for interesting close encounters but that would not fit under the title of the page.Backwardlook (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't see the citation but if they mention at least a lunge that's not clearly a bluff, I'd include it but I'm just saying as written I didn't see it as an "attack". Chrisrus (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at it again and actually retyping the entire passage, it becomes clear that in their own opinions, John D. Young and his companion were never under attack but eventually did fear their status could change. Just why they began shooting the wolves is unstated. If it was for a bounty, the fact that the other wolves ate the dead ones would eliminate any reason to kill two more. Therefore it seems fear of being attacked was a key factor. Peterson and Goldman relate stories of wolves sneaking into camps and stealing food that had been hung just above a sleeping camper, with no harm done to the sleeper. It's just possible that this particular pack of wolves had become habituated to humans and their associated food scraps. Many men seeking their fortune preceded Young and his companion through that area along the Platte River bordering the mountains where gold was discovered. There's not enough information to avoid speculation. Anyway, the passage is copied below and you can judge it for yourself.

“After supper we stretched out on our buffalo skins enjoying ourselves hugely, not dreaming of any danger when we heard the low savage whine of a pack of wolves. The Rocky Mountain wolf is somewhat larger and ten times more ferocious than the prairie wolf [coyote], but they are very cowardly and will never attack a man unless hard pressed by hunger. This time we did not feel the least alarmed. We had a good rousing fire and I always heard that wolves were afraid of fire. We prepared our rifles and revolvers to have a crack at them if they came near enough. In a few minutes they sniffled so close up to us that we could see the fire reflecting on their white teeth.

We covered two of them with our rifles fired and had the gratification of seeing them both spring high in the air and fall lifeless to the ground. At this the whole pack set up a tremendous howling and immediately commenced devouring the dead wolves. We reloaded as quick as possible fired another volley and brought down two more of the dirty pack. As fast as they were shot the others set upon and devoured them. We now felt in a very unpleasant position. The pack was not very large but their constant howling was attracting reinforcements every minute, and if they got very numerous they would get emboldened and probably might attack us. We kept the fire blazing brightly and fired at them as rapidly as we could load our rifles. This kept them in check and also gratified ther appetite. For about an hour they swarmed around us then they began to slink away. They did not appear the least afraid of us and I know we should not got rid of them so easily, only for killing some and so gratifying the ravenous creatures. Their howls soon died away in the distance but we were so alarmed that they might return that we took turn about sleeping for the balance of the night. They did not come back and we had no farther [sic] disturbance till morning. At daylight we counted the skeletons of twenty wolves with every particle of flesh picked from the bones.” Backwardlook (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the lead

At this moment, the lead says:

"....Most cases including many listed here leave much to be desired in the way of conclusive proof backed by thorough and unbiased investigation. [1]

This is cited to Peterson, who said something similar about a different set of wolf attacks.

It goes on to say:

"Proof is likewise lacking that any of the cases presented here did not occur as reported."

The type of documentation we have of each attack varies and we've make that clear to the reader in each case. If we can do a better job of that, let's. But I don't think it's our job to cast a pall over the entire list in this way.

We should just say that this is a list of documented attacks make no generalized statement as to how well documented they are or are not or whether they believe or dismiss any or all of them.

So I plan to remove these sentences from the lead as soon as appropriate. Chrisrus (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• I removed them.Backwardlook (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed addition of Threatening Incidents category

Due to the difficulty of defining what exactly is or is not an attack, I propose adding a category for Other Threatening Incidents to cover situations where people and/or their possessions were not bitten, but threatening wolf behaviors nevertheless motivated defensive actions such as climbing trees, throwing rocks, shooting, etc. specifically to avoid personal injury. Examples that would fall in this category include the motorcyclist in 2013 who was able to outrun the wolf, whereas had he been on a bicycle he might not have escaped; the John D. Young incident; and a few of the non-biting incidents presently in the Nonfatal Attacks category. The increased number of incidents available for study would provide a greater knowledge base regarding wolf -human interactions. I will wait ten days for objections before adding that category. I also suggest changing the title of the category Nonfatal Attacks to Nonfatal Biting AttacksBackwardlook (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You make a convincing case, so I say go ahead. Chrisrus (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Nellessen

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/dnr-investigating-wolf-incident-with-friendship-man-b99591857z1-331183371.html Chrisrus (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

1933 attack

https://books.google.com/books?id=N7rCCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT206&lpg=PT184&ots=WBU0Swczc_&focus=viewport&dq=ravens+kill+reindeer 2601:600:8500:5B1:218:E7FF:FE7D:6AFA (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Karen Calisterio incident

The 2010 Karen Calisterio incident doesn't seem to be an actual "attack", and maybe should therefore be deleted. On the other hand, it might better serve the reader by letting it stay. Readers might be served by learning important information that might be useful or important in some way. If so, deleting might not be a good idea. I donno but in my opinion I am leaning toward deleting because it's not a real wolf attack. Perhaps the wolves wouldn't have attacked her even if she had kept running away or the SUV not arrived. Another idea is that we could find another place to put narrowly averted "attacks". Chrisrus (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• If it's not an attack, Chrisrus, it doesn't belong in the listing. Support deletion. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Okbut let's not just lose this information if we can find a place to put it.

There is an idea above that was suggested more than a year ago, and seconded.

Pause before tossing good information. What about the idea above?

--

Or what about something like List of thwarted wolf attacks in North America.

Or just create the separate section as suggested above scroll up.

--

Or we could decide to do that but to toss just this Calisterio incident anyway.

We still keep the article open to potentially other thwarted attacks.

Imagine for example if the wolves had been in full-on eyes-front direct charging right at her, we might rightly keep that.

That wasn't the case here.

The tracks showed they weren't circling.

After they hit the bushes, as I read it, (please read it) according to the tracks, they just ran off after they entered the bushes.

If we deleted just this on those grounds but don't all view it as having come to a decision about all thwarted attacks.

For example thwarted attacks might include clear attacks that the person was simply saved from harm at the very last second.

That'd be difficult to reasonably exclude.

-

We could keep it elsewhere if we had a separate place to keep incidents of humans encountering wolves and then the wolves don't attack.

Not outside of North America, though: in North America wolf/human encounters of any kind are very rare.

Rare things are valuable and collectible.

More importantly, perhaps, information gleaned from North American thwarted wolf attack incidents might be possibly significant or of interest to readers and users of Wikipedia.

They might benefit in some way.

They might read the raw data and think important things about them.

Maybe who knows possibly recommending what people should do if ever approached by a pack of wolves.

I don't have a clear answer sorry. Chrisrus (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)