Talk:Death of Kenton Joel Carnegie

Title

Please change the title of the article, since, after reading the complete article, it is more than doubtful that Carnegie was killed by a wolf/wolves and much more likely that he was killed by a bear. Since neither can be proven, the article should be renamed to "Wild animal attack on Kenton Joel Carnegie" or something like that (maybe with a redirect from the old title, but also from "Joel Carnegie Bear attack"). As of now, the article, but especially the title is very much POV, hence not encylopedic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.87.37 (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A "bear" attack when there were wolf tracks all around the body and no bear tracks. Riiiight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.21.137 (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• The title definitely needs to be changed to "...animal attack," since there isn't a majority opinion on what animal exactly killed him. 71.226.144.42 (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is quite clear that there is no definitive answer as to what type of animal killed him, so the title should certainly be changed. I don't know how to do that or I would just do it. 'Death of Kenton Joel Carnegie' would be my first choice. Dlabtot (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Notability

Yemani (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC) writes: This article is comprehensive, thorough and well written. It contains important information relating to wolf attacks. It is this kind of article, uneconomic for normal encyclopedias to include, which Wikipedia will become famous for.Yemani (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles like these arguably make Wikipedia less useful as an encyclopedia. I was linked to the article from the article on wolves, spent a good bit of time trying to figure out why it was notable, and decided it's the sort of thing that belongs in a news archive, not an encyclopedia. This is just my opinion, of course. Like Hakeem, I think the work is of high quality and I also feel sorry for the subject and his family. 128.62.214.170 (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I really felt sorry for him and his family. However, the article is not encyclopedic for lack of notability of the person and the event and should be deleted. Hakeem.gadi (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. The event is notable and historically relevant because;

• It is the first officially recorded death due to wild wolves in North America since 1900.
• The event put into question both the popular notion that wild wolves are harmless, and the competence of both Environmetal staff and camp workers, who failed to recognise the danger even after two prior aggressive encounters.
• The media focus for the investigation was extraordinarily intense and sensational, resulting in the filming of two (one of which largely inaccurate) documentaries.
• The investigations (both official and private) lasted two years, and both gave completely differing accounts.
• I think you haven't really read much into the case, nor have you seen the amount of articles on wikipedia already focusing on animal attack deaths. I really do not see how this article (with all its events and implications) can possibly be called unnotable when there are articles here like the Azaria Chamberlain disappearance, San Francisco Zoo tiger attacks, Timothy Treadwell and Tsavo maneaters which do not warrant deletion.

With respect, I believe your action was premature, and based on a lack of knowledge on the event, or of the fact that wikipedia already houses dozens of articles of the same nature. I am removing the notability tag until you can come up with a stronger argument to support your claim. Regards 77.196.50.245 (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Relax, don't take it personally. I know you've put a lot of effort into this. Anyway, the article now looks much better after removing the personality section. cheers. Hakeem.gadi (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am also adding the links you've provided to the see also section so 'ignorant' users such as myself can appreciate the relevance of the subject. Hakeem.gadi (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

All but a few of the provided see also articles are of little relevance to this story, as the circumstances are completely different. I shall fix this, if there is no objection.Mariomassone (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Accurate fact checking and reliable information is important. I want to confirm that contrary to Professor Geist's published claim (as correctly cited in Wikipedia) that Rosalie Tsannie_Burseth lived a nomadic life of a hunter gatherer, she has confirmed that she was born and raised in Walloston Lake, Sasketchewan. In her own words from the National Geographic Transcript 5519:

20:01:32;15 Q:How long have you lived in Wallaston Lake. 20:01:47;21 A: I would say all my life. I was born here in….in Wollastan. I went south for an education and I’ve been teaching going on twenty years now, so basically all my life.

The Dene, who settled at Wallaston, were semi nomadic until the early 1960s. Rosalie never experienced that lifestyle, although she knew people who did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EFDBN (talk • contribs) 22:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Consumption of stomach

With large ungulate prey, wolves do not eat the stomach contents because it consists of masticated vegetation which is inedible to wolves, but wolves do eat the stomach tissue (Peterson and Ciucci 2003:123). In my experience in Alaska, when wolves consume other carnivores (e.g., wolves, lynx, wolverine), stomach contents are normally eaten. (McNay 2007)

Original reference; PETERSON, R.O., AND P. CIUCCI. 2003. The wolf as a carnivore. Pages 104–130 in L. D. Mech, and L. Boitani, editors. Wolves behavior, ecology and conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. USA

The vegetation in the intestinal tract is of no interest to wolves, but the stomach lining and intestinal wall are consumed and their contents further strewn around the kill site. Smaller internal organs, such as kidneys and spleen are then exposed and eaten immediately. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_mXHuSSbiGgC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=wolf+as+carnivore+ciucci&source=web&ots=cNc0Ysr1i3&sig=iyXEpbgXMPW4PrISj2tMxhi5_GQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA124,M1 Mariomassone (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Dragging of carcasses

A typical wolf behaviour was to drag the carcass when feeding on it. If the carcass was still heavy, they moved it slightly and changed it's position. Ten out of 12 bison carcasses were dragged by wolves, on average 2.25+1.5 times each (mean + SD). The total distance they were moved was 27+23.9 m (mean + SD, amximum 65 m.)

http://www.zbs.bialowieza.pl/publ/pdf/1393.pdf Scavenging on European bison carcasses in Bialowieza Primeval Forest (eastern Poland) 2003, Ecoscience 10: 303-311Mariomassone (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The average drag distance reported is the cumulative distance in multiple direction, not the straight line distance from where the animal was killed. In other words, wolves drag a carcass 5 m in once direction, another 7 m in the opposite direction, and 12 m in still another. Cumulatively, the carcass is dragged 24 m. This is typical behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EFDBN (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

changes to opening statement

Kenton was Officially killed by wolves as determined by the Saskatchewan governments Coroner and the inquest jury. That is what the box on the right should say.

The original contriversy was put to rest when the jury came back with a verdict of WOLVES.

THE DISCUSSION AND DEBATE HAS CONTINUED UNRESOLVED FOR MANY GOOD REASONS. THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATIVE REPORT (PAQUET & WALKER) USED A MUCH HIGHER STANDARD OF "SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY" THAN THE INQUEST, WHICH USED A "BALANCE OF PROBABLITIES" STANDARD. THIS STANDARD REQUIRES CERTAINTY OF 51% COMPARED WITH 90% CERTAINTY APPLIED IN THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATIVE REPORT. FURTHER, "OFFICIALLY", THE PROVINCE CHOSE NOT TO CONTEST (I.E. CROSS EXAMINE) THE CARNEGIE'S CLAIMS AND INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS.

Paquet testimony and interpretation of events was not believed by the jury and Judge from northern Saskatchewan. His report was therefore never released as an official paper.

THE JURY DID NOT ACCEPT THE PAQUET AND WALKER ACCOUNT. THE JUDGE MADE NO COMMENT CONCERNING THE CREDIBILITY OR ACCURACY OF ANY WITNESS TESTIMONY.

The current intro lists Herrero and Wayne McRory as having made official statements. Where?, they do not exist. Paquet lists Herrero in his report and possibly McRory but does not Quote any statement or contribution they made.

BOTH ARE ON FILE WITH THE PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN. IN MY OWN INVESTIGATION I REVIEWED THE STATEMENTS.

There were no official reports of aggressive Black bears in the area. One nuisance bear was shot the first week of Sept. No Bear nor bear signs were present until the next spring that is official.

WRONG. OFFICIAL REPORTS WERE AVAILABLE AND PROVIDED THE CARNEGIE FAMILY. IN MY INVESTIGATION I READ THE EMAIL EXCHANGE THAT OCCURRED BETWEEN THE PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN AND THE CARNEGIE FAMILY.

The bear tracks Paquet states he observed in a picture at the scene (on the lake) were scientifically proven to be made by a wolf. They started out as wolf tracks and finished as wolf tracks it was in snow / water that the double print was enlarged.

NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF WAS PROVIDED. AN OPINION AS TO THE ORIGIN OF THE TRACKS WAS PRESENTED BY MARK MCNAY, WHICH HAS BEEN WIDELY DISMISSED BY INFORMED SCIENTISTS, SASKATCHEWAN TRAPPERS, AND ABORIGINAL TRACKERS.

Paquet did visit the area several months after the attack, which would reveal nothing. Paquet did not interview any of the witnesses stating that they are notoriously unreliable.

IN MY INTERVIEWS WITH PAQUET, I FOUND THAT VISIT WAS ONE OF 30-40 THAT OCCURRED 28 YEARS. NOT ONLY VISTITED THE SITE SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER THE ATTACK. MCNAY, PATTERSON, GEIST WERE COMPLETELY UNFAMILIAR WITH THE AREA.

Mark and to a lesser degree Val had phone interviews with several of the search party members.

THIS IS CORRECT. RCMP INVESTIGATORS FROM THE MAJOR CRIMES UNIT DID ALL INTERVIEWS FOR THE CORONERS INVESTIGATION, WHICH IS PROTOCOL INTENDED TO AVOID THE BIAS OF PRESSURED INTERVIEWS. ON RECORD IN THE SASKATCHEWAN ARCHIVE ARE COMPLAINTS FROM WITNESSES WHO WERE INTERVIEWED BY GEIST AND MCNAY.

National Geographic has not produced or released any official report of Paquet would have submitted it at the inquest. These statements should also be removed.

TRANSCRIPTS FROM NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC INTERVIEWS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE INQUEST BUT NOT USED AT THE HEARING. I RECIEVED COPIES FROM ROSALIE BURSETH.

Mark McNay and Brent Patterson's names should be in that beginning as they produced and released official reports.

MARK MCNAY'S REPORT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE INQUEST AND BECAME AN OFFICIAL REPORT AT THAT TIME. GEIST AND PATTERSON WERE REJECTED BY THE INQUEST AS "EXPERT WITNESSES' AND THEIR REPORTS WERE NEVER INCLUDED IN OFFICIAL REVIEWS.

The family found many faults in the original investigation. The family challenged Paquets report that stated Kenton was probably killed by a Black bear. The Chief Coroner called for an inquest to determine the cause of death.

CORRECT, AND THE INQUEST DETERMINED CAUSE OF DEATH WAS AN ATTACK BY WOLVES. HOWEVER, THE VERY LOW STANDARD OF 51% CERTAINTY USED AT THE INQUEST TO DETERMINE CAUSE OF DEATH, AS WELL AS THE MININFORMATION PRESENTED TO THE JURY UNCHALLENGED BY PROVINCIAL ATTORNEYS HAS LEFT THE QUESTION WIDE OPEN.

Mariomassone (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Experts agree: this was a wolf attack. Chrisrus (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a booknich

I was very surprised to see an article of this length on Wikipedia, particularly as it concerns the death of one person of no notable reputation. It's far longer than articles on other famous people, and key issues of global consequence. It should be one screen, nothing more. As it is, it sounds like it was written by friends and/or relatives in an attempt to cast blame on officials for not going with the wolf attack theory. As such, it's NPOV, and should be drastically reduced in length. 07:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.245.140 (talk)

With respect, there is a strong defense claim earlier in this talk page that warrants reading as to the relevance of this article. I would humbly suggest that while there may well be some things that can be edited down from this article, it may be a better approach to expand the articles on other more historically notable figures than to crop all the rest. However, the NPOV accusation does warrant a second glance. 220.147.163.146 (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

imho, if wiki articles turn into booklets, it will all be as I felt with this one: tldr. It can easily be far far shorter if it is an account of an event with a section for the controversy. But it seems to be all about the proceedings, witnesses, specialists etc. I'd like to shorten it but don't want to encounter someone fiercely defending their right to overwrite. A forceful argument for the intensity of an event in its time and its coverage is not enough to change mos, or is it? Afaik, unique or widely covered events go into a news archive and the summaries & citations are written into wikipedia. Anyone looking into NPOV here? 110.33.18.172 (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

cleanup

This article is horribly unreadable at the moment. I am going to start removing unsourced information and information that is not sourced from sources directly relevant to this attack (because such statements run afoul of WP:NOR/WP:Synthesis.) I am not currently removing simply unnecessary information as long as it is adequately and relevantly sourced, but eventually such removal will be necessary to make the article readable. Please do not add back information I remove without addressing sourcing problems. Kevin (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at it further, I'm going to go further in terms of removing stuff for clean up. For instance, right now, pretty much the entire aftermath section deals with criticism of the findings of the initial investigation, which does not belong in the aftermath section of this article, since it's dealing with the wolf attack itself (and not something like "criticism of the official investigation of the wolf attack.") For policies in support of this removal, please see WP:UNDUE among others. Kevin (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing a *bunch* of information that is not directly about the attack. Due to the sheer scale of removal, I accidentally be removing some information that belongs in the article; feel free to readd specific information if I do so. I feel odd removing this much from a page, but there's just a ton of stuff that should not be in this article, or if in this article should only be in summary form. Kevin (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup up is fine but in doing so you have removed significant inforamtion, unintentionally added misinformation, and confused details that now misrepresent what actually transpired. This article has been vetted by a large community of contributors and reviewers who clearly disagree with your concerns. Much of your editing will need to be revised, although I like your writing style. No tildes on this keyboard and I forget the ASCII code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EFDBN (talk • contribs) 21:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

First, emphatically, this article's current state has not been endorsed by community consensus. A lot of the comments on this talk page are actually expressing concern about the same issues I was attempting to address. Even if this article *did* have some form of consensus among the people who had edited it so far, if the article falls against broader Wikipedia policies, that consensus would be inappropriate. Besides for policy issues, the article as it stands is almost completely unreadable.

Please take a look specifically at WP:Synthesis - it is why I removed a solid chunk of the information (like the statistics on hunter-caused deaths) that I did. My other major concern is that the current level and type of coverage of the inquests/investigations in to the death seems like a pretty clearcut violation of WP:UNDUE. I am going to restore my WP:Synthesis related edits, but I'll wait to edit the rest of the stuff until further discussion occurs. Kevin (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't noticed when I posted the first comment, but I don't think you reverted the WP:Synthesis stuff - my bad. I'm also not actually sure now looking at it that WP:UNDUE is the governing policy for a lot of the other stuff, although it certainly is for some. I'll poke around and try to find what I'm actually thinking of - but, imo, and I'm pretty sure there is a guideline that states as much somewhere, the current presentation of this article with respect to the coverage of the investigations, is inappropriate.

The article is about the attack, not the investigations in to it - and right now as just one of the biggest examples, the section entitled "Aftermath" starts off "Dr. Paul Paquet stood firmly by his initial conclusion.." (I can explain in more depth why I think that's a bit ridiculous if you want, but hopefully it's obvious.) Kevin (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

--You made your point, and I do like the economy of words in the revisions. We will, however, need to fact check the revisions and ommissions.

--The article and the controversey that ensued are largely about the various investigations that followed the attack. That is precisely what makes the article interesting and relevant. The coroner's official investigation conducted by Paquet and Walker disagreed with the official judicial inquiry. Paquet and Walker were unable to attribute the cause of death to either wolves or bears. The judicial inquiry, using a lower standard of proof, concluded wolves were responsible. The independent National Geographic investigation agreed with Paquet and Walker. Investigations by independent bear biologists Herrero and McCrory concluded Carnegie was killed by a bear, whereas private investigations by Geist and McNay attributed the death to wolves. I have no idea what wild animal killed Carnegie, largely because all the evidence was circumstantial and open to interpretation by the various investigations. On the other hand, Geist and McNay committed numerous errors of fact that limited the value of their work.

--I suggest that you accept the revisions and fact check them for errors or needed additions. This is juat an effort to shorten the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.130.223.79 (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm refactoring your comments a little bit, just because I have a hard time following comments when they are interrupting each other. (For clarity, the first two comments were directed at me, and the third one was directed at EFDBN.) Kevin (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the first 2 directed to you and third to EFDBN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.130.223.79 (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless anyone else has any comments, I am going to begin a cleanup per my stated rationale in the near future. Kevin (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The biggest problem is simply that the article is far, far too long and detailed. I applaud you for your willingness to take on this effort. Dlabtot (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind the length of the article at all. i came across this by accident while looking at the article of Red Riding Hood movie. I just don't understand what the big deal was. Eaten by a wolf or a bear, who cares which one? Why would the family go on and on about that? The guy got killed and eaten by some kind of animal. Seems like they are arguing over a non-issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.5.146 (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Kenton Joel Carnegie wolf attack

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kenton Joel Carnegie wolf attack's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "mcnay2005":

• From List of wolf attacks in North America: McNay, Mark E. and Philip W. Mooney. 2005. Attempted predation of a child by a Gray Wolf, Canis lupus, near Icy Bay, Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist 119(2): 197-201.
• From Wolf attacks on humans: McNay, Mark E. and Philip W. Mooney. 2005. Attempted depredation of a child by a Gray Wolf, Canis lupus, near Icy Bay, Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist 119(2): 197-201.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."

The article is clear that several investigations reached different conclusions about the cause of Mr. Carnegie's death. Therefore that is what the lede should say. Wikipedia is not a forum for pushing a particular viewpoint, it's an encyclopedia.

Perhaps this content: [1] (lead section only is what I am referring to) belongs in the article - if so add it somewhere. But it definitely does not belong in the lede. per WP:LEDE. Dlabtot (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Perception of wolves

In what way does a discussion of public opinion about wolves improve this article? This is an article about the death of Kenton Joel Carnegie, not an article about wolves. Dlabtot (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)