Jump to content

Talk:List of fatal cougar attacks in North America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unknown Victim

[edit]

Surely, for various reasons, an unknown number of unknown victims have been attacked, killed and eaten by predatory BIG cats since humans first began scampering acround the fruited plains and majestic purple mountains of the North American continent.

I know of no monument to these unknown folks. Nothing akin to the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetary.

Kinda' sad, in a way, for those who died by the fangs and claws of a killer kitty to be forgotten... ultimately being a mere burp after a cougar's dinner (or breakfast or lunch, snack, whatever).

Perhaps Wiki should offer an on-line memorial for those unknown vicitms.24.206.248.102 (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completeness

[edit]

The article states that the list is not complete; however, the cougar fund website states that there have been 20 people killed in attacks since 1890. Including the people who died of rabies our list has 23 people.

It may be usefull to consider expanding this to all atacks. I was looking for trends, and including attacks would supply more data to draw conclusions. 98.232.176.231 (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • I removed 3 of them. There is no evidence suggesting that were killed by a big cat. Only assumption. There was one about a boy, that the police found clothing a couople of years later, but no sign of attack by cat. Tragic as it is, the father still wants to believe hestill alive. The other two had less evidence so were removed for lack of source (one was a "dead link" and another assumption) no evidence or other reports that i can find anyway. Good site that keeps track of this type of thing including and mostly non fatal attacks http://www.cougarinfo.org/attackex.htm -John in CinciIP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.23.189 (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! --CutOffTies (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there might be more, not less, victims that belong in the list. Here are some that were mentioned in the "outdoorlife2007" reference:
  • August or Sept 1998: "six-year-old Dante Swallow was mauled at a day camp outside Missoula." Technically, the article doesn't clearly state "cougar", but that's the only subject it's supposed to talk about;
  • "January 2000: Clarence Hall, an animal-control hunter for the Canadian government, was mauled severely by a cougar he'd been ordered to dispatch in the backyard of a home on the Nuxalk Indian Reserve in British Columbia." This does need however corroboration if the mauling was fatal or not. (He wasn't, heard him on the radio afterwards 184.66.15.112 (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • "the death of an eight-year-old girl back in 1979, [...] The cougar still had fresh remains from a deer kill in its stomach. It just licked up the girl's blood, left her lying in the d[irt]"
I would've included these myself, but i thought i should discuss first. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vulernability of children

[edit]

The article implies that children are especially vulnerable and that children make up the vast majority of the victims. While seemingly logical, the list of victims doesn't support "vast majority". The ambiguous wording of the article may mean that the vast majority of attacks including non-fatal ones are children, or the incompleteness of the list may be involved. But without a citation I think this is a suspect assertion. Paulc206 (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is because the webcomic XKCD made a joke about this very webpage, implying kids were the vast majority of cougar victims. In other words, this page has been vandalized. Lots42 (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe not. Either way, when XKCD jokes about a Wikipedia page, some people go nuts about it. Lots42 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find that the whole page is something of a joke, most of the claimed cougar attacks claimed in the article are not confirmed cougar attacks. Look at the one that was added this past week, a hiker's remains were found having been eaten by animals including a possible mountain lion, and yet someone added that as a claimed cougar attack to the article.
The list of claimed cougar attacks are overwhelmingly unverified, yet the latest one that was addeed was obviously lacking any hint of any cougar attack. Damotclese (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

XKCD reference

[edit]

Appeared in today's XKCD. May want to keep an eye on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.53.110.198 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That Spoofed/Fake Incident

[edit]

Thanks for removing that unverified, fake alleged incident. One of the things I've been seeing out in the real world are systematic efforts to make people think that mountain lion attacks and bear attacks are "on the rise" and far more common than gets reported by the supposed "liberal" media, the reasoning (so it goes on Facebook) is that not reporting attacks "which happen every day" is a conspiracy.

Eventually we might expect to see a serious effort to fill this Wikipedia entry with numerous claimed incidents, none of which will be backed with legitimate references. There seems to be a desire to pretend the threat is far more widespread and serious than it actually is, usually spread across "conservative" Facebook groups and pages. Damotclese (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified claims -- Jaryd Atadero, 3, male

[edit]

The entry just added about "Jaryd Atadero, 3, male" was not confirmed to be a cougar attack, the fact that animals eat human remains and claw open hikers' clothing is not indicative of a mountain lion attack. It indicates that human remains were eaten by animals, the references suggesting one of them was a mountain lion.

Since this was not an attack, the entry will be reversed after discussion unless suitable references are provided which confirm it as a mountain lion attack. Damotclese (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who posted this, but I want to thank you because there is no evidence Jaryd was taken by a cougar. In fact, The Colorado Bureau of Investigation found no mountain lion hairs or blood on Jaryd's clothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.98.2.54 (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, in fact a number of the proposed incidents lack evidence to support their inclusion in the list. That one was easy to "debunk" however the text was changed to reflect possible mountain lion attacks ratherthan the previous stronger-worded it was a mountain lion attack.
One of the issues that we face in North America is unfounded fears of hikers, bikers, backpackers, campers, climbers that mountain lion attacks are common and frequent, and the inclusion of proposed incidents which aren't supported by evidence is bad, however the inclusion of proposed incidents which were demonstrably not mountain lion attacks is twice bad. Damotclese (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laguna Beach Spree

[edit]

Whoever cleaned up that "Laguna Beach Spree" nonsense, thank you. The claim was unreferenced, no citations, zero, it needed to be removed, thanks. Damotclese (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Referenced Increase In Numbers Killed

[edit]

The editor that increased the number of people killed in North America from 20 to 70, would you please provide references or citations for that new number and re-submit your change, please? Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Thomas Harris (26) case seems a little bit remarkable: "Killed by a two-year-old male cougar near Gold River on British Columbia's Vancouver Island. He was dragged over 800 yards (730 m) in the snow." Snow in July? According to the Gold River article, Gold River is situated 160 m above sea level.Pål Jensen (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Pål Jensen, you are correct, that seems wrong according to reviews of Climate / Weather, Vancouver Island which shows:
From June through September, Vancouver Island is typically sunny and mild. Daytime temperatures in the southern region of the island (from Nanaimo to Victoria), range from the low-to-mid 20s ºC, with evenings cooling down to about 10º C.
So that appears to be wrong. I'll have to see if I can find more legitimate coverage of the fatality and see if there's better information. Damotclese (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you are correct, that was vandalism, some idiot's idea of a joke. Thomas Harris was a politician who was not killed by a mountain lion. :) I will remove the table's entry. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bot or something corrupted it

[edit]

Something corrupted the article, looks like it was an attempt to automate reformatting of the table or something. Hopefully I got the mess reverted and the article restored properly. Damotclese (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaryd Atadero was predation after death

[edit]

Thank you, editor, for removing Jaryd Atadero from the table, I had been considering doing that since the findings were that the predation of the remains were performed after death resulting from a fall. Damotclese (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of fatal cougar attacks in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be added?

[edit]

https://calcoastnews.com/2015/08/mountain-lion-chews-off-cayucos-mans-hand/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B048:E257:2C7D:F2D1:4E5A:D366 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the extant article is about fatalities, not injuries. Damotclese (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the issue is fatalities caused by mountain lions, not about mountain lions that eat humans after they have died. The fatality here is not caused by mountain lions despite the fact that a mountain lion ate the man's hand. Damotclese (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox

[edit]

I'm going to remove the taxobox again. People who want to learn about how cougars are classified will search for and find that information in the general article on cougars, where a taxobox is already present. Including an infobox covering the parent topic on a subsidiary list article is a highly unusual practice. I don't see taxoboxes used in any of the other articles on animal attacks included in Template:Animal bites and stings. How is the taxobox a significant element of this list? Plantdrew (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same case of Murder?

[edit]

if you look up [5] and [6] it seems that both newspaper articles use the same words but different age for the boy. Something weird is going on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.190.183.229 (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Papers make mistakes, no reason think anything of it.★Trekker (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

gender?

[edit]

I just finished reading the shark attack page and saw no systematic reference to gender of the victims. Is there a reason this is relevant in this article? I'm willing to accept anything, including the fact that the reported incidents may lack substantive proof and the gender is simply meant to distinguish the (alleged?) victims. Like I said, it simply stood out because of the other attack page. Considering the age of victims, it seems unlikely this could have even a tenuous connection to female maturity that is sometimes theorized. Ukrpickaxe (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about the factual accuracy of this page

[edit]

This concern is transcribed (with permission) from VRTS ticket # 2017112910013282.

I sincerely apologize for asking you to fix this subject, but email is literally the extent of my technical ability. I would ask you to delete the 5 deaths listed for California prior to 1994 because your data is being used to support arguments about mountain lions in this state and the alleged deaths are - in my opinion at least - bogus.

The June 19, 1890 alleged death has no source. I have researched everything I can think of, and there simply is no source. I realize it appears on almost all lists, but never with a source. My suspicion is it got on those lists by being on other lists, but where it started, who knows? I expect it is a created legend which someone wrote down once and everyone else copied.

The January 31, 1909 alleged death appeared in the Deseret News, a Utah newspaper, and no where else. The February 2, 1909 alleged death appeared in the Aspen Democrat, a Colorado paper, and no where else. I mean that literally, no where else, and specifically no where in California, 1000 miles away, where the events allegedly occurred. More damning, the two accounts are very nearly word for word identical except for the ages. Read them yourself. They are obviously from the same source. There is no possible way that both reports can be true, and the existence of these near - but not quite - identical reports leads one to the inevitable conclusion that BOTH are false. The most likely explanation I have is that someone in the area wanted to reduce the mountain lion population. What better way than to salt area newspapers with accounts of mountain lions slaughtering and eating children? And put the alleged event in California, so far away that no one will ever check. Then let the locals shoot every mountain lion they see.

The July 5, 1909 deaths I believe actually happened, but those two people died of rabies. Listing them as being killed by mountain lions is ridiculous. When someone dies after being bitten by a rabid bat, do we put then on the "killed by bats" list? Skunks? Foxes? Dogs? Of course not, they were killed by rabies. Leave these two on the list as being attacked by a mountain lion with the parenthetical note that since the animal carried rabies the people eventually died of the disease.

All of the above you can easily verify, and I have to trust you to correct the list. I again apologize that I can't do it myself.

Your input and feedback are requested. I will not be watching this page, so please ping me if there is any required follow-up or concerns. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the poster. Local newspapers that are obviously stealing material from each other then fudging the facts, and which date to an era of low standards for fact-checking to begin with, are not good enough. Nor are newspapers that old considered secondary sources any longer; they're primary. What we should probably do is replace this with something like "From 1890 to 1909, five alleged deaths (two from rabies) were reported in small, local newspapers, but without corroboration, and often from over 1000 miles away from the alleged attack sites." or something to this effect. I.e., don't pretend the sources do not exist, just put them in context as existing but unreliable, and two of them about rabies not about wild-animal violence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, part of the problem is that predation by mountain lions is assumed in some cases when human remains are eaten, newspaper reporters and television reporters "sexy up" their coverage of human remains being eaten by mountain lions by claiming the human was attacked when some of the times there was no attack, the human fell or otherwise expired and the remains were eaten, no actual attack took place.
Hunting down references and citations is difficult since aftermath science-based evaluations of the root cause of death is often never reported, only the fact that remains were found.
We might consider appending citation needed to each case which is not verified as an actual attack.
Also if you notice the history of edits here, some editors have attempted to add incidents of mountain lion attack without suitable references or citations, and those proposed edits have been reverted routinely, so there is an effort to keep the article's accuracy at its current levels. Damotclese (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with the poster, and in fact I'm quite pleased that somebody would actually take the time to research such old incidents in enough depth to question their accuracy — far too many factual inaccuracies or questions on Wikipedia simply get ignored or glossed over, and sometimes even rereferenced to sources that got their erroneous information from us in a misguided attempt to salvage it, so I'm pleased that some people actually understand that sourcing an incident from 1909 requires finding sources dated in 1909. I agree with the suggestion that we could retain them as alleged but unconfirmed mountain lion attacks, with a description much like what SMcCandlish suggested — it's clearly sourceable that the claim has been made for those incidents even if their actual accuracy is in question. Bearcat (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will add some preamble to the page addressing the suppositions and news reporting since some reported attacks aren't well supported as attacks, and often a coroner's office can not determine whether predation on human remains were after death or were the cause of death. Damotclese (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eating humans

[edit]

I reverted a proposed update -- which I rather enjoyed -- which suggested that the remains of one human were "partially eaten" though the offered referenced article said nothing about the individual being eaten. Mountain lions do not like to eat humans, on the rare occasion when humans are attacked, the mountain lion is diseased or was provoke in some way, mountain lions do not normally eat the remains, it is other animals which chew on human remains after death, though after the human remains have become soft and pliable after a week or so, i there's anything left a mountain lion might, if very hungry.

But any way, the referenced article said nothing about the remains being eaten so I reverted the proposed update. SoftwareThing (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP-address user added the word "eaten" to one of the confirmed attacks and I again reverted it after checking available news reports, none of which said that the 9-year-old was eaten, most of which said he was "mauled."
It brings up the need to assure that before editors alter text to suggest that someone was eaten (in whole or in part) they need to check their sources and provide suitable, testable citations to support the claim. SoftwareThing (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More than a bit difficult to WP:AGF after the IP's edit to List of wolf attacks in North America in which he claimed "His body was found entirely consumed, only bones remained " despite the rest of the text describing the autopsy, with the body being partly consumed and having lost 25–30% of its mass. Meters (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It did seem curious, there does seem to be a desire for one-time editors to add "eaten" to this Wiki page and to others when testable references supporting postmortem mountain lion predation is lacking, even in light of citations easily Googled which notes that body decomposition and predation is likely from other scavengers. The idea of humans being eaten by other animals seems to fascinate enough people that they feel the need to add the suggestion despite the lack of any reported references.
Out in the hiker world and in the larger public, there is the supposition that mountain lions are dangerous, the mistaken belief results in the animals being slaughtered by police when they're seen in human spaces, it motivates adverse behavior which makes hikers, campers, climbers et al. less safe due to stupid NRA extremists thinking they need guns "for protection" because they're too stupid to do any actual research. People adding "eaten" to Wiki pages does not help.
In the Angeles National Forest, we have a healthy population of mountain lions, they live up against human habitats with only occasional conflict, but in Southern California we have long since learned to leave them alone, yet there's always some 30% of any populace that harbor ideologies contrary to common sense and contrary to direct observation which would otherwise clue the minority opinion in to accepting stark reality. We end up with dead mountain lions shot or poisoned by a few imbeciles who are crammed packed with other idiot beliefs coincident with their unfounded fears. SoftwareThing (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This IP was clearly more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. I went straight to a level 3 warning. Meters (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Sonja Brooks and Gender

[edit]

News reports of the mountain lion attack note Both victims in a cougar attack in the Cascade foothills wanted to promote cycling for women and communities of color which tends to indicate that Sonja was a woman. Friends may speak of her as a male yet the deceased called herself a woman which news outlets also did. SoftwareThing (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the same person once again attempted to vandalize this article by claiming that Sonja J. Brooks was a male when every reference and citation, every news outlet notes she was a female, and in fact she had been part of a group attempting to get more women to cycle.
The constant effort to vandalize this page is increasingly annoying. SoftwareThing (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And once again, cleaned up vandalism. Brooks was female, someone keeps trying to vandalize her gender. SoftwareThing (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in looking this up, it seems that SJ Brooks did identify as non-binary rather than female, and prefered the use of non-gender specific pronouns. [1] It would probably be best to identify them as such, per their wishes. - Bilby (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will go see. The person who has been altering the gender has been doing it for 2 years now without any references or citations and, because it's a dynamic IP address and the only thing the person modifies is this page, it's ripe for vandal classification. A Google search finds an overwhelming number of articles classifying the woman's gender as female, none that I found were male or "non binary" so I'll go take a look at your reference, thanks. SoftwareThing (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I linked Brooks non-binary to https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/sj-brooks-montreal-1.4674612 which is a suitable reference for Wikipedia's expectations. Thanks! SoftwareThing (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need a better reference -- Killed by a cougar in Mt. Hood National Forest on the Hunchback Mountain Trail

[edit]

For the entry noted Killed by a cougar in Mt. Hood National Forest on the Hunchback Mountain Trail we need a better source than Fox News which has little credibility, and Oregon Live's News Coverage Article might be a better, more reliable, more accurate reference for that entry.

For Wikipedia, reducing references and citations to unreliable sources is an on-going effort. SoftwareThing (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaryd Atadero -- Not supported by facts

[edit]

The recent addition of Jaryd Atadero to the list is not supported by facts. Google shows that the death is not solved, the father contends that the boy was abducted, there is no suitable evidence to support that he was attacked or eaten by a mountain lion.

After discussion, the proposed addition will likely be removed unless anyone can come up with official references or citations showing any mountain lion involvement. SoftwareThing (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DifferentEyes for removing the entry, using Google I also could not find any suitable reference or citation that confirmed the suggestion. SoftwareThing (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, Brooks was female

[edit]

Family members and friends continue to be annoyed that someone keeps vandalizing Brooks' gender, she was a woman who competed in women's physical events, all news reports, all references and citations has her down as female. Please stop vandalizing this page, she was not "binary" or any spectrum or non-definitive, every reference, citation, family, friends, and reports of her activities while alive has her as female. Thanks. SoftwareThing (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You just agreed with the binary source a few months ago (above on this talk page). Schazjmd (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I did! Why was the reference removed? I'll go look at this again. SoftwareThing (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I put the citation back, thanks for reminding me. SoftwareThing (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gender vs Sex

[edit]

There is no reason to provide gender information on the victims. Sex is the only relevant demographic information when it comes to mortality and vulnerability of a sexually dimorphic species in this context. If the remains of a victim were found 100 years from now with no social information, their gender identity would be completely irrelevant and unknown to the statistical data. Similarly, gender is being assumed by the authors for the majority of the victims, seemingly solely so that the irrelevant information of the only atypical victim can be included in the article

Either remove gender or stop reverting edits to sex. It's entirely counterfactual.

The gender of people who have actually been attacked by mountain lions -- which, as people can see, is extremely rare, is of interest to people who might be doing research on the rare phenomena who might wish to classify or enumerate fatal attacks by gender to determine whether there is a stark bifurcation in numbers predicated upon gender. It seems to be a valid data point to include in the extant article, though it does break somewhat from other lists of fatal phenomena such as parachute jumping.
Also a plant or animal's gender is a spectrum, it's not either/or inasmuch as homomorphic physiological plant or animal reproductive organs are concerned, plants and animals have a spectrum of primary, secondary, and tertiary gender characteristics which span any cleanly-divided boundary line. That's biology on this planet predicated upon DNA and the ways and means in which gender expresses as both a function of genetics and hormonal development in the womb.
If you look at the history of edits, I kept replacing "non binary" with "female" because all of the extant references and citations -- including family members -- noted that Brooks was a female, until a definitive reference which held somewhat equal weight was located which supposed that Brooks defined herself in past years as "non binary," so the extant article and the classification was adopted.
Oh: And gender has little to do with sex. Gender is not a definitive indication of sexual behavior, neither among plants nor animals. Battery-powered or electrical plug-in machines increasingly are being used to define human sexual behavior as populations increase and as bacteriological and viral organisms make their way circulating among the human populace, at least within industrialized nations. SoftwareThing (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition to use sex instead of gender

[edit]

Gender does not really provide any information since, according to recent times, it's something that can be changed. If we listed the sex instead, then that would be more useful information since men are usually bigger/stronger than women, thus it would be more of interest. I will be making this change and going through the sources to ensure proper information. 2601:18E:101:6180:DDB:8AF1:89E6:5C3C (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any value in this change. Whether or not someone is attacked by a cougar seems irrelevant of their gender or sex. The only result I can see is to make the change so as not to refer to one single case as the gender in which they identified, and I don't see that as justified but I do see it as disrespectful. - Bilby (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, gender is not sex -- the two words have two different meanings. Also gender is a spectrum, it is not "according to recent times," gender has always been a spectrum, not just with mammals but the flora and fauna phylums. Just leave the text alone, it's fine and correct the way it is, please. SoftwareThing (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Er, actually I'm sorry, I sound like an assh0le here. :) The note that eliminating the gender of each attacked person here does sound like a good idea, I don't think that it adds anything. Predation is so rare that it's highly unlikely that any statistical analysis or anything else academic would ever be done on mountain lion attacks, gender in the extant article does seem to be rather pointless, now that it's mentioned. SoftwareThing (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't think it is noteworthy if a human male is killed instead of a human female? Why include the criteria at all, then? "Gender" adds nothing, "sex" at least adds something. This is objectively true. 72.93.206.32 (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, I do not, nobody would be, no researcher or any other academic would be, no. SoftwareThing (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Men are bigger and stronger than woman on average. Thus, it is noteworthy. It probably indicates that the coyote was even more rabid or desperate for food since they were willing to attack a relatively larger and stronger human. How can you say "no researcher or any other academic would be interested in this" with certainty knowing these simple facts? It is the same reason we include age; why should we include age but not the sex? According to you, a researcher will be interested in knowing the age - why/how can you say this with certainty but not about sex? 72.93.206.32 (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For purposes of the extant article, gender is not relevant, mountain lions do not attack people based on their gender, it's irrelevant. Also, get a Wikipedia account, until you do I'll ignore you. SoftwareThing (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can an admin please reply here? This guy is not responding to my point. A cougar will attack a smaller size human given the choice and now he blatantly said he will ignore me until I make an account which he doesnt have the right to do. Ive been polite. Im also talking about sex not gender and he ignores that. Doesnt seem like he is here to build an encyclopedia. 174.255.64.43 (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not an admin but I wanted to share my thoughts on the situation. Is the average height / body size really a factor in deciding this, since we have no sources stating that any of the victims actually conform to said averages? I consider gender more relevant, as an indicator of who the victim was rather than why they were attacked which is purely speculative.
@SoftwareThing: Please don't dismiss this user's opinion simply because they're an IP. Zudo (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should omit the gender/classifier tag altogether. If we can agree that it's not information relevant to why the person was attacked (i.e. victims not conforming to average body size), it seems to all be irrelevant information. Plenty of similar pages exclude that information, and its inclusion seems to be causing problems in the community here. DontAnswer (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Include the category, change it to sex. Why? Because this is statistical data, and name/age/sex are the three parameters that are about as close to universally standard for statistical data as you can get. Arguably, sex is THE most universal of all: think about how often you see "John Doe, unknown age" or "Unidentified female victim" etc. These are standard information categories; trying to be all "woo woo" by using social science/humanities terminology in areas that aren't about that just looks flaky.
As for whether the mountain lion cares about what sex she attacks - I think that's just a bit beyond our scope here for what we should be basing our decisions on...but for what its worth, I'd always been told ever since I was a kid that ladies seem to get attacked more often than men. That's not for us to decide, but documenting the sex and age of victims some visitors to this page may find useful; it isn't for us to decide whether or not it is of no use too readers. Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, as editors it is up to us to decide what is worth including and what isn't. "Sam, female, 22", "Sam, male, 22" and "Sam, non-binary, 22" all tell us something. The question is what is most relevant, if any. Given that neither bilogical sex nor gender identity is a determining factor in attacks (cougars are not known to choose to attack people of one sex over those of another), the relevance is in what it tells us about the person. In which case, I'll go with gender or - if consensus is against this - nothing, but I don't want to disrespect a victim here by refusing to acknowledge how they identified themselves and by placing a label on them which they rejected in life, and refering to them by how they identified is how we are expected to manage this. - Bilby (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilby: That's understandable to me, personally I agree with @FireJuggler: that it should be sex rather than gender, but I think at the end of the day, in this particular case, it seems to me that no category is better than a category that nobody can agree on. Gender seems to have become a hotly contested matter, whereas Age and Name are not. Considering this is a page about animal attacks and not gender issues, I think we should veer away from the matter and focus on what can be agreed upon about each victim, that being age, name, and information about the attack in question. DontAnswer (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, not good faith now

[edit]

The user created an account and has changed the wording again despite repeatedly consensus that the original wording is correct. At this point it's no longer good faith editing, it's vandalism. If you want to alter the text of the extant article, we'll have to ask an admin to come and rule on your proposed change. SoftwareThing (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's since we're not going to get the newly-created account to accept the consensus. The discussion about altering the existing text from "gender" to "sex" has been a discussion that's been on-going for over a year, it has been discussed and determined that the existing text "gender" is the correct term. Since we have one person unable to accept the discussion, it's time to ask an admin to examine and rule. Thanks. SoftwareThing (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At what point was there ever consensus in the above dialogue? DontAnswer (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved third party, it looks like you are both edit warring to get your preferred version up. That should stop before anything else happens.
@SoftwareThing: You appear to have a misunderstanding about what admins do. They have no more weight in content disputes than any other editor.
@SoftwareThing and DontAnswer: My recommendation would be to start an WP:RFC to establish clear consensus from a larger group of editors. Once that is clearly established, abide by whatever is decided. SamStrongTalks (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SamStrongTalks: I'm open to that option if @SoftwareThing: is. DontAnswer (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've already been told at WP:ANI that this dispute does not need administrator intervention at this point. The article appears to be back at the status quo. If DontAnswer reverts again (they have been properly warned about edit-warring, although they have removed the warning from their Talk page), then WP:AN3 is the best place to go.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_fatal_cougar_attacks_in_North_America&oldid=1208234489"