Talk:List of wolf attacks

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

New title needed[edit]

This page should be renamed List of FATAL wolf attacks. However, the main wolf attacks on humans page already had that title once, and thus this article cannot bear that name. I think this is important, as "list of wolf attacks" implies that it contains also non-lethal incidents.Mariomassone (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There should be some place for things such as these:
  1. Christopher Nimitz, young child, captive wolf, dismemberment
  2. Peter Lemke, young child, captive wolf, disembowelment
They might be important for the readers to know. Chrisrus (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name that should be added[edit]

This story of the Ben Cochrane wolf attack should be added to the list, and perhaps given its own article as well Nodekeeper (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1764[edit]

Please check this, most probably the date "June 1764 - June 19, 1967" must be replaced by "June 1764 - June 19, 1767" 79.241.169.146 (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is already done (not by me)--Waldmaus (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Wolf[edit]

There are many more cases in the article Indian Wolf in subsection "Attacks on humans", which aren't yet listed here.--79.241.145.143 (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Were they fatal attacks? Chrisrus (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I don't have the books that are cited there. Does it care if they were fatal attacks? This is the list of wolf attacks, isn't it?--79.241.171.104 (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear. It says it's about significant attacks, but if you check it you'll see that it's all fatal ones. I tried but failed to convince Mario (scroll up and see) that we should include any important attacks. He thinks that would be too long. What do you think? Chrisrus (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a few non-fatal attacks in this list, for example November 2012, June 2012 (only 1 of 4 died), and April 2000. --79.241.169.111 (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism filter[edit]

I had the problem that my edit was rejected by the vandalism filter. The filter detects the male/female symbols in the third column. If you encounter the same problem, please use a workaround and just write "male" or "female" in this column, and let it change someone else later.--Waldmaus (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

news[edit]

http://naidunia.jagran.com/madhya-pradesh/narsimhapur-wolf-attack-on-people-sleeping-three-families-11-injured-631319

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A complete mess[edit]

I'm afraid this article has taken a turn for the worse, as it has become very cluttered. I appreciate the efforts of Herbert Mahler in adding to the article, but I also fear the same user, new to Wikipedia, has not looked sufficiently at how the article was previous to all his edits. The detail section should contain a sentence or so, not tell a story. It's utterly irrelevant to say to which hospital people were taken after an attack, or to give a long description of what they were doing prior to the attack. Sentences such as In a life and death struggle the man could kill the predator or Still oozing blood his wounds told the story of a long fight with the wolf are entirely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. While I am sure Herbert Mahler is here with the best intentions, the truth is that the article was better prior to all his changes. For this reason, I encourage Herbert Mahler to tidy up his edits (and this means removing 90% of the descriptions; look at how attacks have been added by others) or I will revert the page back to how it was before Herbert Mahler's changes. This should be a list of wolf attacks, not a description of each attack. Jeppiz (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is your propose?[edit]

When I started to add cases to the list I tried to adjust my style to the already existing contributions of other editors. Contributions of others like these, which where prior to my first addition:--"A wolf killed a domestic dog and tracked its owner back to Bulkley Valley Nordic Centre's parking lot. The male skier did not have any injures. After this incident, a small wolf pack approached another male skier near Banff National Park. He fled on a snowmobile at that moment. Three wolves in the Bow Valley were getting too close for comfort to the worker at Mount Norquay. They prompted him to hop on his snowmobile. The pack chased him for a very short time."----"Morgan was walking home along a forest trail when he noticed a wolf was behind him. The wolf snarled at him, lunged, and then chased him down the trail. Morgan tried to lose the wolf by going off the trail and through the forest. He fended off the wolf with a tree branch multiple times until it released him. He climbed over a barbed-wire fence, falling a few times, and finally made his way out of the forest near the Holiday Inn in Canmore. He eventually recovered from the incident."---"An unidentified young contract worker on his midnight break was jumped and mauled by a lone wolf less than one hundred meters from the main camp. A nearby female security guard frightened the wolf away. She administered first aid and called for an air ambulance, which airlifted him 675 kilometers to a hospital in Saskatoon, where doctors expect him to recover. After the attack, authorities ordered that area wolves be shot, that food disposal systems and fencing be inspected, and that staff be educated."---"Hollan was riding 1/2 mile ahead of his two buddies when a lone wolf sprinted out of the woods and surprised him with an attempted bite just missing his pedal. He unsuccessfully attempted to outrace the wolf and deter it with pepper spray as the wolf ripped open the bike's rear packs. Four attempts to stop passing motorists failed. Hollan approached a hill. As he prepared to stop and use the bike as a weapon, a couple in a Humvee pulling a trailer came to his aid, and threw the passenger door open as Hollan was attempting to climb through the window. The wolf furiously attacked the bicycle packs. The female rescuer unsuccessfully stood in the vehicle's doorway shouting at the wolf from 8 feet away as passing motorists honked their horns. She threw a water bottle that hit it in the head. It retreated to a ditch. Other motorists threw rocks at the wolf until it left."--"The killed victim was a zoo employee who had worked with the Kolmården wolf pack, consisting of eight wolves, for three years. The wolves had previously attacked three other people: in 2007, Swedish TV-profile Arne Weise was knocked over by one, in 2010 a visitor sustained a bite to the arm, and a 15-year-old girl had been bitten on the thigh by one of the wolves a month before the fatal 2012 attack. The zoo operated a policy of "social activities", in which staff members interacted with the animals in order to establish rapport with them. The zoo employee was attacked at 11:00 AM after entering the wolf enclosure alone, and her colleagues only noticed her absence an hour later. Paramedics were unable to reach her on time, as the wolves had surrounded her body. After the attack, the zoo discontinued its "social activities".---So everybody can see very clearly that my additions were in no way more extended or vaster than the others which were 0n the list before I contributed. I just tried to be in length somewhere in the middle. there fore I really can't follow your argumentation. Best wishes Herbert Mahler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbert Mahler (talk • contribs) 02:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

answer to criticism[edit]

Mr. Jeppiz, thank you for your interest in this matter of wolf attacks and for your contribution to this list: In your last contribution you wrote "it has become very cluttered" and here I agree with you. The list has become very cluttered, because there are so many wolf attacks on humans nobody could have imagined before. But now let me go back to your first contribution, it was -"19:27, 21 July 2017‎ Jeppiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (196,412 bytes) (-1,423)‎ . . (→‎2010s: "Notes" mean a brief summary, not an article nor details.) (undo | thank)"-. This contribution wasn't easy to understand , because you mentioned a column "Notes" which isn't existing in this list. Actually the column is called "Details" and not "Notes", so there have to be some details. Further you have the opinion that these "Details" , you called it "Notes" mean a brief summary. I agree with this, but I think a summary is more then just a heading. It should in brief summarize the incident and give an idea about what happened and the gravity of the attack. Further it could content, if possible, a note which is helpful for following researchers who possibly would do more research on a certain case. Therefore it can be a very precious information to know, in which hospital the attacked were treated . Also from a treatment in the hospital one will get an idea about how serious the attack was and how seriously the victims were injured. Without serious injuries people wouldn't be send to hospitals. Then in the hospitals there will be files about every victim and about the reason of the injury. This can be of interest for academic research, too. So therefore there is reason to mention the hospital if possible. Further you are disturbed by this sentence In a life and death struggle the man could kill the predator but actually this sentence was the summary of an incident when a wolf bit a man in the face and neck and didn't let go and they were fighting and the man was defending his life so for me it was a proper way to summarize this action in this way. What you critize next is this sentence "Still oozing blood his wounds told the story of a long fight with the wolf , but this sentence is almost a quotation from the medical journal with a high reputation. I quote from the Journal of Archives in Military Medicine http://jammonline.com/en/articles/13230.html "A 12-year-old male was brought to a low resource healthcare center located in the Indian Himalayas at 9000 feet at 2200 hours, during winter with an alleged history of wolf attack around 2000 hours. On first examination, his head and face was covered with clotted and dried blood with some fresh blood oozing from multiple sources. The child was conscious, oriented, and responding to commands. Tachycardia with feeble pulse, tachypnea, and mild hypothermia were present. Detailed local examination revealed multiple lacerations with oozing of blood on forehead, eyes, cheeks, nose, ears, upper lip, scalp, and both hands. There was ongoing anterior and posterior nasal bleeding. Lacerations over the forehead, cheeks, and lips were 1 to 5 cm in length and 4 to 10 mm deep. Both superior and inferior palpebrae of right eye were torn apart and lay hanging laterally. Left palpebrae were intact. There was no apparent injury to either globe of eyes. A large laceration over the bridge of nose extending below the left eye leading to exposure of nasal and facial bones was seen. Both ears were mauled by the wolf, leading to soft tissue injury around the ears. There were no serious injuries on the neck and other parts of the body"-....-" The attack investigated here is likely to be a predatory attack, as rabid and defensive attacks are limited to quick bites, whereas the injuries to the child represent prolonged struggle with the wolf while trying to protect his face/throat with his hands (1)."-...So this sentence "Still oozing blood ..." is condensed from a scientific research and I can't really see why there should be no space for this in an online encyclopaedia which tries to give a correct idea about knowledge and reality. I also have to answer to your request to delete 90 percent of the details column because otherwise you would delete 90 percent of the list regarding the last 20 years. --I won't delete content of other contributors and actually some of the cases with the most extended details aren't from me. I 'll give some examples--"the elderly woman in 1980 from Estonia--John Stenglein 26. April 2000--Roderick Phillip 10. September 2009--the four people from 17. June in 2012 in Kolmården Wildlife Park, near Norrköping, Sweden--and more. I added the very most cases of the last 10-20 years but many cases with of the most extended detail descriptions aren't from me. This is an international list with international sources , international contributors and international audience and nobody should delete something flippantly .At this moment this list is the most extensive in the world regarding the attacks of the recent time but still very incomplete - maybe by nature. There are much more cases but it isn't to easy to find because it is needed to research in many languages and it takes a lot of time. But anyway the more trustworthy cases are listed the more the list can be a mirror of reality so everybody should be careful with this list and try to improve it in a constructive way. Best wishes Herbert Mahler (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 27, 2017[edit]

[1] Sciencia58 (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of wolf attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of wolf attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too many description in modern attacks and list of fatal and non-fatal attacks[edit]

I suggest the attacks to have short description and having a list of fatal and non fatal attacks to people see if the attack were fatal or not

clarifying request[edit]

Which descriptions exactly do you have in mind, which of the cases have to long describtions, and do you think that this sign --(✝)-- isn't enough to mark fatal cases. Many of the modern cases are already marked with it. So you could probably at first mark all the rest of the unmarked fatal cases with this cross.(Herbert Mahler (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)).[reply]


Attacks in 18-19 century had short description which I find more easy to understand and were only fatal. Also the (✝) is olny used in recent attacks. Should I mark the others fatal cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.210.235 (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List purpose and criteria[edit]

@Jeppiz, Herbert Mahler, Deusdet, and Pauli133: I've copy edited the article, linked some locations, and done somewhat of an overhaul in an attempt to make the list more manageable. To address some of the points raised above, I can understand emulating the practices of previous editors which is how most new editors begin. However, that doesn't mean the practices are in line with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Several of these are noted below.

  • Per WP:LISTCRITERIA, Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. This should not be a list of every wolf attack which has ever occurred, but a list of encyclopedically notable attacks. Every attack on this list should be cited to a reliable secondary source and have the potential of having its own article. Wolf attack § Europe notes that there are many thousands of recorded wolf attacks; to exhaustively include these would make the list completely unmanageable, and would hide the notable attacks among the many non-notable attacks. As it stands, Category:Deaths due to wolf attacks is more useful for finding notable attacks than this list, but relatively few readers are aware of Wikipedia's category system.
  • Beware of breaking news per WP:RECENTISM. The 24-hour news cycle may report on recent attacks, but a better test of notability is whether reliable sources are still talking about the attack a year afterwards.
  • Per WP:SPLITLIST, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy. This would include post-attack events like the hospital the victim(s) were taken to, and other non-encyclopedic trivia.
  • The table should not repeat information. If the type of attack is listed as rabid or the victim is listed as a herder, then it is not necessary to repeat this under notes.
  • Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a research database. As an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, Wikipedia should never be used as a source by researchers. What may be of use to researchers are the references cited for each list entry, and researchers (or other Wikipedia readers) can follow these for more details on the attacks which are not appropriate for an encyclopedic summary.
  • Per WP:SENSATIONAL we should be cautious with breaking-news sources that try to catch attention (with gory details). Per WP:Sensationalism we should avoid emotionally charged language and instead neutrally summarize the important facts.
  • Per MOS:ICON, Every functional icon should have alt text, which is text describing the visual appearance of the image. Failure to provide this alt text will often make the icon meaningless or confusing to those using screen readers or text-only browsers. Per MOS:NOSYMBOLS, I changed the character (†) to {{dagger}} for accessibility.

Looking at similar lists, I feel that List of fatal shark attacks in Australia is a pretty good example of what we should be doing here (though it could be condensed). List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States also keeps it fairly manageable by limiting the number of columns, though I'd probably condense the descriptions of the attacks. List of fatal cougar attacks in North America and List of fatal bear attacks in North America are similar. Those are lists of fatal attacks, which tends to restrict them to more notable events, though this becomes a problem with List of fatal dog attacks in the United States which tries to list all 30–50 fatalities per year for 10 years (earlier fatal attacks are split onto other lists because there are so many). Another example is Tiger attack § Tigers and locations known for attacks which discusses notable man-eaters rather than attempting to be an exhaustive list, and is the only one which doesn't list the attacks by the victims.

Additional notes:

  • To limit the number of entries on this list and improve its functionality, inclusion criteria should be discussed and agreed upon, then clearly stated in the lead.
  • There is a separate List of wolf attacks in North America, which should be considered while the scope of this list is clarified.
  • Some of the entries are for "suspected" attacks; we shouldn't bother with these unless there's a newer source which can confirm that these were wolf attacks. These and reports of stalking with no attack or injury (often with the "victim's" word as the only evidence) should probably be removed as non-notable. (Notable but contested attacks like Death of Kenton Joel Carnegie can probably be included.)
  • When a list entry has bare facts with not much in the notes, or when entries look the same with little to differentiate them, then that's just listing statistics which is something we should avoid. There should be some significance to each list entry.
  • I feel that there should be some explanation, either in the lead or in a footnote, about what is meant by the type of attack. Specifically, what constitutes a provoked, unprovoked or predatory attack. This may have to be cited, as it looks like WP:Original research in some cases.
  • This list is arranged as a victims list. The essay WP:Victim lists discusses why this is problematic in regard to Wikipedia policy. This is of particular issue regarding children. Note that much of the list reads like a List of people attacked by wolves.
  • I'm honestly not sure why the sex of the victim is encyclopedically relevant. I understand that statistical lists include this data, but providing raw stats is inconsistent with an encyclopedia. We should provide a summary of the analysis of the statistics by reliable sources, not the raw stats. I move that the sex data be removed.
  • Some of the list entries describe a series of attacks over several days. In these cases, the date should have a range or period reflecting this.

I hope this is useful moving forward with this list. Feel free to {{ping}} me with any questions or comments. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! I agree with what you've said. I'd like to see this article drastically pruned, personally: there's a whole lot of non-notability going on. What I'm looking for in an article like this is things that belong in the company of the Beast of Gévaudan; right now, it's mostly just a reminder that wandering around Central Asia in the dark is dangerous. pauli133 (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Reidgreg: I agree with you. Deusdet (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Herbert Mahler: In this edit you reverted my extensive copy edit and cleanup of the article (describing this revert as a "minor edit" in the edit summary). I've described my reasoning above, and two other editors have agreed that this was an improvement. Why do you believe this was not an improvement? – Reidgreg (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Mahler (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC) :@Reidgreg: Why do you believe this was not an improvement? Because through your edit a lot of precious information got lost. You deleted about 50 000 bytes of the list without informing or discussing anything at all. I described my revert as minor edit, because I just restored the original list without adding or changing something. When you would check the history you would see, that when ever I added a case, I noticed it. Reidgreg, You complain a lot about the list without having added any cases or contributed in another way ever to the list. Why didn't you first contribute and then talking about improvements, but just removed so much precious content, precious enough to be cited in a paper of the "wissenschaftliche Dienste des Deutschen Bundestages ", which was composed for German federal parliament "The Bundestag" to inform its members about wolf attacks on humans.[1] Just now I am the border to Laos so now I cannot respond to all objections in time, but I have something to say about every objection. Maybe you can add a few more cases in the meantime because there are still a number of clear cases from recent times that are not yet included in the list. The list is really very incomplete[reply]

@Herbert Mahler: Per WP:ES It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors, and given the amount of discussion here it was pretty clear that revert was going to be contested. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We do not collect "precious" information, but summarize notable subjects. Wikipedia's purpose is considerably different from, per your example, publications of the German federal parliament. I believe there is a lot of WP:NOT in this list article, as mentioned above. Without repeating that, have a look at WP:EVENTCRIT which notes: Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect such as widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources. It further notes: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
Since you haven't made any response in terms of policy or guidelines, and as two other editors who are major contributors (top 5 by number of edits to the article) agree with my copy edit and cleanup, I'm going to go ahead and restore it. This gives a tighter summary of incidents (I don't believe that it removes any) and also makes numerous accessibility improvements and tags various article issues; such tags should not be removed without either addressing the issues or discussing them. I feel that a lot more ought to be trimmed after discussing the list inclusion criteria. I welcome discussing this further when you have time. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it's a pity to delete such content about wolf attacks, indeed. @Herbert Mahler: Why don't you write a book about wolf attacks? Warum schreiben Sie kein Buch über Wolfsangriffe? Here in France, the books written by Jean-Marc Moriceau have greatly improved our knowledge about wolf attacks. Wir brauchen solche Bücher auf deutsch.--Deusdet (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/563294/83068d6297590248dd89375affd358c4/WD-8-041-18-pdf-data.pdf

Categorisation of attacks[edit]

@Reidgreg: Was a decision made on the categorisation of attacks? I too was looking at this and wondering about the inconsistency of "unknown/unprovoked/predatory/rabies", particularly standing out in the example of the two women killed in Taijakistan in March 2019.
Fatal attacks in late winter/early spring, by non-rabid wolves and in the vicinity of the victim's house (without livestock) is a pretty classic pattern in hungry wolves actively predating humans. However, I presume because of the wording of the articles it references, this one is marked as "unprovoked". At what point does an attack qualify as predatory? Is a wolf killing a human who disturbs it and then deciding to eat the body predatory or does predatory imply that the initial aim of the attack was with the intention of eating the person? How do you tell this in most situations without asking the wolf? There's an argument that almost all non-rabid fatal or sustained attacks should be considered predatory as most initial bites are unlikely to cause fatal damage and attacks due to being spooked would be expected to involve a rapid retreat by the wolf afterwards.
And there's the example from this year of a German shepherd in conflict with a wolf that was actively predating his flock being classed as "unprovoked". Though, as that example seems to consist of a wolf very much trying to avoid a human and just get to the prey it killed there's a good case for saying that one also isn't an attack on a human. Actually, reading further news articles, a wolf attempting to go around a human to eat livestock after being spotted, chased and having stones thrown at it by said human is not a wolf attack, it's a human attack on a wolf and I'm tempted to remove it from the list entirely.
Regardless, a 100% confirmed, purely predatory attack involving stalking an unaware human is also an unprovoked attack, as may be an attack by a rabid wolf that wanders into a village. I'm not suggesting it's our call whether to decide if attacks should be considered predatory or not, so much as I feel the entire unknown/unprovoked/rabid/predatory distinction is unhelpful and redundant, representing several overlapping categories. Perhaps attacks should be just marked by rabies status as rabid/not rabid/unknown? Additionally there could be a category for predatory/conflict/defensive, though it might be more sensible to just note unequivocally predatory attacks in the notes rather than as a discrete category. Hedge89 (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hedge89: There wasn't a whole lot of discussion or decision-making. It might be better to open a general discussion regarding these sorts of list articles (including the bear, shark, mountain lion attacks list articles, etc.) to attract more editors and hopefully get a well-rounded decision that sticks for a while. I agree that poorly defined data is not particularly useful. If we were to include categorisation of attacks, we should report what is stated by reliable sources on the subject (e.g.: formal studies by experts, not breaking news), making note of whether different sources define the classifications differently. If we try to classify cases ourselves, particularly based on what was reported in breaking news sources, that's OR and bound to result in errors. Perhaps rough definitions of the types of attacks could be included in the lead, allowing the reader to make their own conclusions? Including raw statistical data may not be suitable to an encyclopedic list; it's probably better to discuss the overall statistics in the main article and keep the list clean, simple, and as short as practical. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Names[edit]

This was mentioned above but has not received much of a reaction. Listing names of attack targets is a BLP violation. The names must be removed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crying wolf (Fake news)[edit]

Dear all, I am going on a long trip alone in wolf territory. In my research of wolf attacks, I found a stark contrast between what google finds and what google scholar finds. I find Section "4.7 Captive wolves, fake news, misrepresentation and mistaken identities" to give a good perspective on the surpising number of mistaken reports. https://brage.nina.no/nina-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2729772/ninarapport1944.pdf Correspondingly, I made an edit to remove the Celia Hollingsworth case. It doesn't check out, and there is a legal process concerning the coroner's analysis. FYI, for my long trip, I will take bear-strength pepper spray, but for feral dogs or wolf-dog hybrids. I'd bet my life that I won't have trouble with wolves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneyb (talk • contribs) 10:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Type of attack Issues[edit]

When a person’s pet dog is involved the attack isn’t predatory but the wolves are protecting their territory from a competitor. Dogs and wolves are the same species. So the attacks should be called defensive. 207.135.241.141 (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t think, that it is in the sense of Wikipedia to spread information that is not on a solid fact base[edit]

Dear community,

I find it quite cool, to have a list of wolf attacks on Wikipedia, too. Lately, an austian anti-wolf group took your article as evidence, that some recognized scientists in the field of large carnivore ecology and some NGOs are lying about wolf attacks on humans. My colleagues and me heard about that, because we are large carnivore ecologists ourselves. We had a closer look at this atricle and it turned out, that there are some weaknesses. 1. A lot of the cases mentioned here are grey evidence at best; just because some local newspaper or whatever reported it, doesn't mean it actually happened in the way they describe it. Please fact check information before you add it to the list, otherwise it looses validity. 2. We were wondering about the cases in France at the beginning of the 20st century and were talking to the people mentioned as reference. They didn´t even know all the cases. So please make sure the references are correct and the sources are trustworthy. Again, a newspaper article is not necessarily a trustworthy source, I suppose all of you acutally know that. There are at least two very well researched standard works on wolf attacks on humans. I believe you already know them, but just to make sure I'll link them again here. https://brage.nina.no/nina-xmlui/handle/11250/2729772 https://www.nina.no/archive/nina/PppBasePdf/oppdragsmelding/731.pdf To sum up, the article runs the risk of becoming an accumulation of unverified information. This would make this page a non-serious source about attacks of wolves on humans. I don´t believe that this is in the sense of Wikipedia.

P.s.: I admit, that I didn´t read all the comments and I have the feeling that some topics I adress were already mentioned before. Using the word fatal in the title sounds very sensational and moreover, there are not only fatal attacks in the list. Adding incidents with captive wolfes seems off-topic to me. They are tamed and habituated to humans. In such cases it´s very likely that accidents happen (https://www.lifewolfalps.eu/en/lupi-confidenti-sintesi-della-conferenza-internazionale-2022/). Another reason why I find it inappropriate to mention such cases here is, that wolves are no pets, pets are domesticated, wolves are not. If you keep a wolf as a pet, it is really your own responsibility and fault if something happens. Therefore it can´t be mixed with cases of none captive wolves, which often were habituated, too but very likely not from the human who in the end suffered from it. 213.147.167.82 (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the nina report. if you really try to understand the cases mentioned in this report and go to the ground of their sources, you will find that these scientists sometimes have weaker sources of evidence than these sources recorded here in the wikipedia list. For France, look at professor Jean-Marc Moriceau. If you accept the Nina Report you must logically also accept the Wikipedia list 2003:C8:1719:1303:D24:122A:616B:600A (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 1945 attack in Portugal probably is bogus[edit]

I worked for years as a consultant in the MedWolf project and read a lot about attacks on livestock in Portugal – a major problem for wolf conservation, naturally. But never once found a documented attack on humans. 2001:818:DCF6:A400:C818:8BBE:4FD4:D96 (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Russian Federation, 200 people were attacked by wolves in Russia alone in 2020 https://www.gazeta.ru/social/2021/04/12/13555670.shtml 2003:C8:1719:1303:D24:122A:616B:600A (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

correction needed[edit]

Sonya Chernigova was killed by a bear (they thought first it might have been wolves as I understood the newspaper article) [2]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7326163/Schoolgirl-nearly-decapitated-deadly-wild-bear-attack-Russia.html 62.178.140.168 (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Russian media, the final official investigation in Russia revealed that the girl was killed in Russia by a wolf and not by a bear, as claimed in this English newspaper. https://www.komi.kp.ru/daily/217194/4303672/ 2003:C8:1719:1351:5407:2E41:66F9:587A (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are much to much wolf attacks on humans for a list of this kind[edit]

It is completely clear that a list of wolf attacks on people in this form no longer makes sense. There are simply far too many known cases in which people have been attacked by wolves to be included still manageably in such a list like this. The very renowned historian Jean-Marc Moriceau Professor of history at the University of Caen-Normandy and president of the Association for the History of Rural Societies alone found 10,000 fatal individual attacks in which people were attacked by wolves in historical France. A list like this cannot possibly come close to including all cases of wolf attacks on humans because the number of attacks by wolves on humans is simply far too high. Another form should be found.Herbert Mahler (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[1][reply]

Also the 210 cases from 2020 published by the russian goverment and the approximately 500 cases mentioned in the updated NINA-report are in some ways really too many cases to list each case individually. Herbert Mahler (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be mentioned that the authors  of the extended Nina report have taken over many cases from this Wikipedia list so when working through the cases in the Nina report and possibly entering them into this list -as long as it still exists in this form - what should carefully be taken into account is whether these cases already exist in the list or not.Actually the authors of the Nina report complain that they didn't always find enough information in the list to confirm the cases. This is partially because somebody deleted a lot of precious information about where the victims of attacks had been treated in hospitalsand so on.This would have been quite helpful for the researchers of the Nina report to verify the cases.Quote from the new Nina report regarding the Wikipedia list on Wolf attacks . "For a final 51 cases it was not possible to determine if an attack had happened or not from the 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞". Nevertheless, Wikipedia can be proud when high-ranking scientists incorporate findings from Wikipedia into their work.https://d1jyxxz9imt9yb.cloudfront.net/resource/882/attachment/original/Linnell_NINA_RAP_1944_Wolf_attack_update.pdf Herbert Mahler (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://d1jyxxz9imt9yb.cloudfront.net/resource/882/attachment/original/Linnell_NINA_RAP_1944_Wolf_attack_update.pdf Herbert Mahler (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified the title of the list because the large number of wolf attacks on humans makes it impossible to create an even remotely complete manageable list. Just think of the 9,000 individual cases that Professor Jean-Marc Moriceau effectively identified over a period of just 250 years for historic France alone. The list can only contain a few of the unmanageable number of attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbert Mahler (talk • contribs) 13:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.wissenschaft.de/magazin/weitere-themen/als-der-wolf-noch-boese-war/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_wolf_attacks&oldid=1216713769"