Talk:Wolf attack/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Different topic (this heading added after the contents were written)

Because this threshold is so low, "good" wikipedia articles weight various sources and provide relevant context.

For example, good science articles prefer peer-reviewed research, while not banning other sources that meet "RS" criteria.

The term "peer-reviewed research" has been misunderstood by some editors here: but the definition CAN be learned, and this ought not be insurmountable to article improvement.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend self-deleting the above incoherent mess, figure out what exactly your point or suggestion is, and then clearly state it. North8000 (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You are right; it's a bit wordy. shall I tighten it up a bit?

 ::The topic here is whether this particular paper is WP:RS or not, is that correct?

Your grounds are that Linnell, the primary author, is not a qualified expert on the referent, is that correct?

Scratch that, you seem above to be saying that you agree that the article in question is WP:RS, but that other WP:RSes should also be given weight in order to balance the article, for a neutral point of view, is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict, prior to your strikes) I still can't see any communication in what you wrote. On your first question, instead of telling us what the topic of your post is, you seem to be asking an unnamed person what you post is about. Then you wrote a second question which you then told us to ignore, but still left it up there. Finally, you seem to be asking what some undefined "you" thinks without saying who the "you" is. And so your whole point seems to be asking an unnamed "you" to say what your post is about and then what they think?!?! If you can't be bothered to coherently communicate with enough empathy for readers to check whether you are actually communicating, you shouldn't waste people's time by posting your ramblings here. North8000 (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to agree that the text layout after Topic Shift is confusing North8000] are you replying to Chrisrus or to the IP poster dubbed @East Lansing? Graham1973 (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The topic shift divider was added and split their previous post in half making it more confusing. So my first post was in response to the full (now divided) post from someone identified only as "76.250.61.95". Next Chrisrus wrote as if they are 76.250.61.95and so I went with that and was replying to their new post. Then, after that they struck a par of their post and divided the other part with the new after-the-fact title/divider. North8000 (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. By "you" I meant User:76.250..., and any alter-egos he might have. I call him "East Lansing", after his IP address location. He seems to feel certain WP:RSes are given undo WP:WEIGHT and others too little. Chrisrus (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm still confused, but on the general topic, meeting wp:rs means meeting some particular "get in the door"' criteria, it does NOT necessarily mean that the sources is actually reliable. Whenever there is a more in-depth discussion, (such as at the RS noticeboard) additional unwritten common sense criteria are also given weight. (roughly, expertise and objectivity with respect to the material which used it as a reference). At first look, the document linked above looks reasonably good in all of the above respects. My suggestion is that any further discussions on this be more specific and in the context of this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss that paper in the section set aside for discussing that paper, just above. At a certain point, the topic changed to achieving balance with other papers, which is not a subtopic of that one. Chrisrus (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no discernable topic, it is a scrambled, incoherent uncommunicative mess. North8000 (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we appear to have strayed. I'll start again, below.

At 23:12 on the 27th of November, 2013, an IP address in Michigan said:

WP:RS is a low threshold on Wikipedia; some WP:RS are more reliable than others, or some have certain different degrees of reliability. WP:GOOD articles assign proper WP:weight to each; and while they prefer strictly peer-reviewed, prodigiously published research; WP:GOOD articles do not ban other WP:RSes.

Furthermore, "certain editors" of this article, who he declined to name, might benefit from reviewing perhaps reviewing Peer-reviewed research or otherwise improving their understanding of that concept; this will help this article improve.

Anyway, that's what I understood him to be saying. Scroll up to the top of this section and see if you agree.

If anyone would reply to him about what he said at the top of this section please do so below. If you have a point of order, or otherwise want to change the topic, please start a new section, or a subsection, or take it somewhere else entirely as appropriate. Chrisrus (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Chris, for a masterful and succinct summary of my point!

North8000 calls it a "mess," and with "no discernable topic," and other things that are perhaps unreasonable and maybe even irresponsible.

Am deeply sorry for all that.

Clarification of your summary, would be that SCIENCE articles, according to Wiki policy, weight peer-reviewed research more heavily than other sources. Also that it is indeed yourself, Chrisrus(see above) that previously misunderstood term. Also, "prodigiously published research" is another complete misconception regarding the term "peer-reviewed research." You're on right track toward knowledge and improvements.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This referent falls under "science", yes, but also history.

Sorry I meant to say "prestigiously published" not "prodiguiously published". Some publishers of peer-reviewed research aren't as prestigious as others.

What specific edits to this article are you proposing? Please be specific. Chrisrus (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

In that case, shall we re-name this section "assigning proper weight to sources"? At the moment, the heading does not describe the topic clearly. Chrisrus (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be better to close it out. I think that folks here are fine with assigning greater weight to sources that appear to have greater reliability. Now that we have established that principle vaguely, anything further should be strictly along the lines of what this talk page is for.....to discuss improvements to the article. And so any further discussion on this should be on SPECIFIC proposed changes to the article. North8000 (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Is topic primarily animal behavior, or history? If a mix, is it half & half? Sixty-forty? What?

Is or is not NOT the difference between disciplines of science and history research in any way notable?

If a distinction is to be drawn, how?

If not, why?

"Peer-reviewed research" is a very specific term. Generally it refers to scientific material published in journals following review and comment by other scientists.

It does NOT mean a book review written by a "peer. Prestigious publishers" is fine, but can mean almost anything. Generally the most prestigious publishers and those who publish peer reviewed research are separate categories.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Your first points, thanks, but we already knew that. The highest form of WP:RS are peer-reviewed articles in prestigious publications. Good articles do not limit themselves to these. This is agreed by all. Please move on.

What does this have to do with article improvement? Are you familiar with important info from such sources that this article doesn't know about? Please hold back no longer! What have you got?

This article is based on WP:RSes with info about wolf attacks from scientific studies and historical investigations. Both were necessary for them to write those articles. There's no way to tease the two apart because the topic is cross-disciplinary. It's the nature of this referent. The experts had to consult historical documentation to find out about the topic properly. You can't ignore the history of wolf attacks and then pretend to know much about wolf attacks! Chrisrus (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

76.250.61.95, I may be a little quicker to get peeved by the type of thing that you are doing than others, but I think that my complaint is legitimate. When people write here, others generally take the time to read and try to understand what they are saying, and understand what changes or or additions they are proposing for the article. With that in mind, I think that what you have been doing here is (probably inadvertently) rude and disrespectful of their time. You are just throwing out incoherently wording vague thoughts and possible points for discussion and implying that they are somehow related to the article. But it appears that you can't be troubled to say how you claim that they are related. And you can't be troubled to do what this talk page is supposed to be about which is to propose and discuss specific improvements in this article. It's time for you to either get specific about what changes you are propose, or stop posting. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Answering your question, "Is topic primarily animal behavior, or history? If a mix, is it half & half? Sixty-forty?", this article is about Wolf attacks on humans. A wolf attack that has occurred is BOTH history and animal behavior, so in the cases of attacks that have occurred, there is no "either or" choice, each is both behavior AND history. And is somebody puts in well-sourced material related to wolf attacks (current science etc.) that is not about attacks that have already occurred, that is also fine. North8000 (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah-so Mr North; Criticism very valid!!! Thank you!

Mr Chrisrus: Can we senseless headline have new another please here: Specific suggestion I not make you!!! 76.250.61.95 (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Address non-equivalency of sources?

My larger point, as previously stated: Article contains a significant number of reports that rely on narrow, modern forensic and scientific standards, and also a larger number of other reports based upon historical data which, although indeed perhaps significant, lack scientific verifiability. Although these many varied sources are in some sense all notable, they are not directly comparable. One group is science and the other history.

My only specific suggestion is that a clear distinction can easily (must, I think) be drawn for clarity between scientific and "historical" sources, and currently is not. If my suggestion is valid, the list project is currently unacceptable. Improvements may be difficult; perhaps even impossible. Does that help?76.250.61.95 (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and to meet your heading request I created a new section for this question. Since it split your post, I put your sig on the other part as well. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the sourcing for this article overall looks pretty good. In my opinion, your idea of having the editors overalll assess and classify, address or note in the article) the quality level of the sources would be problematic due to several reasons. One simple one is that this is an article about Wolf attacks, not sources. Suitable sources or sourcability is a requirement for the presence of the sourced material'; that is the requirement and the only real sourcing topic, rather than comparison between or rating of the sources. Second, it is not the place of the editors to create and place into the article ratings of sources.......ironically, 'that would violate wp:verifiability and wp:nor, because we would be placing editor-created ratings (= unsourced and unsourcable) into the article.)

In my opinion, one thing that could (optionally) be done is to discuss the factual items regarding the nature of available sourcing in the article. This is not where somebody says "somebody should.....", this is for somebody to say that I'll work on it.

Also, if somebody feels that sourcing is not sufficient for a particular item (to meet policy as defined at wp:verifiability) they could challenge it. But to me, the sourcing looks pretty good. I've read three of the listed books, and I also glanced through the pdf of the most heavily used source, and as sources, they look pretty good to me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no!

Take an absurd example: One could write an article on Scientology and base most of it on L. Ron Hubbard's books, and the many analytical works published by his organization. These all meet definition of reliable sources.

Rather, editors look at universe of sources, and use discrimination and weighting. Also incumbent on editors is a fair representation of each source actually used. Rather than merely piling up random bits culled from "reliable sources," these are among the duties incumbent upon editors.

Linnell, et al., for just one example here, is excellent and central source that is unfairly represented in light of the several pages of disclaimers he includes concerning the many reports he cites (and which are cited in this article without important context provided by Linnell).

Each source demands similar scrutiny and care.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your first, second and fourth sentences, and don't understand the third. And IMO they do not address, conflict with or refute what I wrote. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr North: "my first sentence," with which you claim to agree, is a two-word, blanket disagreement with all that you wrote in your immediately prior post! There is thus potential confusion about your views. Are you confusing paragraphs with sentences and discounting the first graf? Paragraphs and sentences are important concepts.

Allow me to point out that the Linnell question is the most specific point that I raised in my post immediately above. (Seventh sentence). Maybe you could address that?

76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I mixed that up. I was actually referring to your paragraphs. (and not counting the "actually no") And it's a good idea to get specific and focus on Linnell as you suggested. Except that that is the one what I didn't understand what point you are making. Could you clarify? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read the first "Linnell et al." source. In particular the section of several pages near the top where he discusses data.

After you've done that, we can have a more informed discussion about Linnell. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I read the 1st 13 pages. North8000 (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Good!!! Linnell, handled correctly, is certainly among the top few sources we've got.

His discussion of data serves as a very useful and utterly neglected baseline regarding sources; both in treatment and weighting.

You now know that he says: "There is always a certain degree of uncertainty around many of the cases presented here." Reports cited are mostly "not subject to modern forensic methods and standards of documentation."

There are "many potential sources of error" in his data. Also that he "has not investigated wolf attacks in the field" and "neither have we checked original historical documents reporting wolf attacks."

Contrast this with the more highly focused work cited from Alaska, where reports were all confirmed via modern forensic standards.

These are quite different animals, so to speak.

Is a bit like standards of truth in a modern courtroom vs truth in the study of ancient history. Both are standards are valid --and neither are perfect. Yet they are vastly different and drawing the distinction is critical to honest understanding.

Specifically, I suggest article could benefit from several brief paragraphs, sprinkled liberally all throughout, discussing this distinction in some generic way, citing for example, Linnell's caveats.

Thus one might mix the very different disciplines of history and science -- without confusing them.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of repetition, but covering that in the article sounds like a good idea. There is sourcing for it as Linnell covered that topic thoroughly.North8000 (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There may be some difficulty ---in that Linnell is commenting specifically on his own data. While his categories can be logically applied to all data used in our article, applying his discussion more broadly might become "original research."

Yet I think Linnell's point regarding "a degree of uncertainty" is convincing. He even presents, in a highly rational manner, somewhat detailed levels of uncertainty, based on the nature of sourcing.

Sort of like what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do in choosing and weighting "reliable sources." The list, by nature, cannot weight sources.

Anything that is RS, is fair game for the list. For example I think we have one source, that is a bit of popular writing on hunting and sportsmanship from a century ago. I'm quite a personal fan of this archaic genre of pop literature, but it wasn't noted for accuracy.

No way to run a railroad.

76.250.61.95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Policy is even unclear on whether editors are "allowed" to do that, and so there is certainly no basis for implying that editors are remiss for not doing it, as you are implying. North8000 (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

At some point I would like to do some re-writing of bits of the article in order to sort out science and history sources, using Linnell discussion of data as basis and baseline.

But I'd much prefer NOT do this if my work would merely be reverted and discounted. I'd consider the project only if my work might serve as basis for further editing and/or discussion.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You are an editor. What you just described is non-specific and cover billions of possibilities which range from great additions that everyone would be thankful for to things that everyone would oppose, and everything in between. You seem to be possibly asking for a commitment ahead of time that none of those possibilities would get reverted. My suggestion is to be an editor; all of the normal processes and possibilities would apply. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I took your advice. I'd rather discuss that see it merely reverted. My inclination is to expand on the contents and make them more integral and prominent within the article.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like my edits are mostly okay?

Wolf attacks on primates are not relevant to this article -- unless a source can be found saying otherwise. I will again eventually delete that bit.

Am working more on a couple of things, generally aiming for improved accuracy and a more neutral tone.

Graves/Geist accounts of the Soviet Union are fine to include. But placed alongside Bibikov's letter, they suffer. Given that the sources contradict (and that on face, Bibikov is more impressive) I think the whole point should be played down or simply abandoned.

Besides, if you look for Graves & Geist, they're widely cited on highly partisan Web sites --and almost nowhere else. Even as it is, we're citing Boone and Crocket hunting club. Is unnecessary and probably undesirable to rely on this as a source for NPOV article.

Mech more closely represents establishment, and the perspective in his revised "Who is Afraid" article should probably serve as the tonal template to a greater extent for this article than presently.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Lede re-write:

I've tightened the wording, and reorganized where I saw redundancy, and thus significantly shortened the thing. I think lead section is reasonably just an overview, rather than exploring nuances of a topic.

I've only cut content re. two bits -- in part because they lack citation: The "hot debate" among scientists regarding danger of wolves; also stuff about wolves eating non-human primates. If shown to be significant/relevant, can be placed lower down.

What would be acceptable source concerning a "hot debate?" As for wolves' diet, what are available sources?

76.250.61.95 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

IP, the "hot debate" is sourced to Linnell's Is the Fear of Wolves Justified?: While the fact that some large carnivores like bears, tigers (Panthera tigris), leopards (P. pardus), African and Asiatic lions (P. leo) and mountain lions (Puma concolor) attack and kill people is undisputed, the danger posed by wolves is often hotly debated among scientists and environmentalists.Mariomassone (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

@ 76.250. . .A couple times above you asked for feedback. I haven't analyzed everything but overall it looks like you are doing a lot of good work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

North America section:

Am going to work more on this. Note that 3 of 5 "variations thereof" presented are accurate statements. But editor chose to highlight the inaccurate variant and ascribe it to all wolf advocates. Needs further re-working.

Perhaps I'll look at Boyd.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC) 76.250.61.95 (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's my feedback. The mere existence of negative reactions from advocates of the harmless wolf theory to the published findings of experts on this subject is not enough to mention. You would have to say exactly what substantive objections were raised, and then only if they have not been definitively refuted. We must not make edits which leave the reader with the impression that there is more reason to doubt that these attacks actually happened than there actually is on the grounds that wolf advocates have merely questioned them, no edits calling the findings "controversial findings" or some such. They would have to have questioned them successfully. Chrisrus (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

In 1993, Mech said "lessons from Europe and Asia can be applied to the United States," and that land managers concerned with wolves expanding their range "may turn their thoughts to considering how humans and wolves may live together" explicitly by limiting wolf populations. Essentially the point of later Boyd's essay.

In separate writing around the same time, Mech said he was aware of "20 to 30 reports" of fatal attacks annually in India. He commented, accurately at the time, that "none of these reports have been investigated by competent biologists." In the same piece, Mech reviewed eight historical attacks in North America that had been confirmed at the time using modern standards, none of which resulted in serious injury. He noted that "some 19 million safe visitor days have been recorded in Lake Superior National Forest" and that Canadian and Alaskan park records add "many millions more."

"The potential for a wild wolf to injure a human during an attack is great" he said in the same earlier piece. "Once can never say never when discussion the possibility of wolf attacks on humans."

A few years later, in yet a third piece, Mech noted that Dr. Y. Yadvendradev, a U.S.-trained biologist, had confirmed that a number of the reports from India were accurate. Yet Mech said North American data still justified his original conclusion ---that wolves don't represent a significant threat to humans in the U.S. and Canada.

Is actually pretty reasonable, and I don't think was a "hot debate" or controversy among scientists that is adequately sourced here. Given sourcing, issue can be accurately interpreted as a "straw man" that both Linnell and Boyd pulled from air to make their point.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

On point of order, please indent in such a way that one can tell what you are replying to.

Second, have you read Mech L.D. 1998. Who's afraid of the big bad wolf? -Revisited. International Wolf 8(1):8-11. ? Chrisrus (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, it looks like any statements, questions etc. regarding this that blend all wolves worldwide are faulty statements / questions. North8000 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Chris: Dr. Yadvendradev is mentioned only in "Revisited."

North: You bring up an important point, but let's get to that in a bit. Meanwhile, this question of a "debate" among scientists and environmentalists should be dealt with. My first preference is to remove the material entirely, or, failing that, to re-write (concisely and briefly) with information that is more neutral and specific.

The "phrase" in the article is taken from Boyd, quoting Mech, who in turn, had posed the phrase rhetorically, in an essay that raised questions about its accuracy. Mech, perhaps, is a fair proxy for the scientific establishment.

I'd say the sourcing on this phrase is pretty muddled and could safely be removed.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Reading Wikipedia article on the Kenton Joel Carnegie attack, I find it unsurprising that judge in the inquest banned Valerius Geist as expert witness because he lacked credentials.

It's an interesting case to ponder regarding standards for our list (See note 40). It seems the few experts who visited scene and examined body were agnostic about what killed Carnegie and leaned toward black bear (which have killed a couple dozen of North Americans). On the whole, if you scrounge up experts who have commented, the preponderance is on the agnostic bear.

But parents demanded (and eventually) got) a different conclusion from a local jury with help from McNay, who based his theories of case mainly on photographs.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added new section on "debate." Briefly I put it here, but I just threw it in the article and it can be discussed here.

Sources are missing but all will be added shortly. I won't bother if the thing is to be deleted. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC) ecember 2013 (UTC)

Lead Section

The lead (lede) sentence needs to be re-written. It says "Although fear of wolves has been pervasive in many societies (p.7 of Linnel 2002, pp.302-304 of Mech and Boitani 2003) attacks on humans are rare, and seem to occur at a much lower rate than those of other large predators. (p.5 of Linnell 2002).

What effect is this to have on the reader? At a time when the North American experts have, based on research from Eurasia that they'd been unaware of, rejected the "harmless wolf" and "fairy tale" theories of wolf nature, and are striving to inform people properly of the danger, to not only the public, but also the wolves, as an attack would also be a disaster for the animals, of wolf attacks?

Readers are likely to read that sentence and come away with the impression that, while fear of wolves has been common, it's highly unlikely to happen, so when in wolf territory, they won't worry.

• First, good articles don't cite the lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the contents of the article that follows, which is where the citations go. It's supposed to be a summary of everything Wikipedia knows about the referent.

• Second, the referent is not fear of wolf attacks. It's wolf attacks. There is no need to speak of emotion in the opening clause. For this reason, I'll be removing the introductory dependent clause tonight.

• Third, although the statement "wolf attacks are rare" can be cited well, it doesn't mean we have to call them that, because words such as "rare" and "common" are personal-point-of-view terms. In the lead sentence, how many wolf attacks is the reader going to understand that to mean? One reader might understand something like three or four, and other reader might imagine some wildly different number. Why not just give them some idea how often they occur in germane contexts, and let them decide if it seems "rare" or not. 3,272 from 1580–1830 in France, or 273 children in three states of India in the last 20 years, might and so on might be seen as either not very many or quite a few actually, depending on one's personal point of view.

• Finally, what is the ratio spoken of in the lead that is used to compare how often wolves attack compared to those other animals? Rajpurohit 1999 says they kill more people than tiger so later down in the article. Presumably it's how many wolf attacks occur compared to tiger attacks and so on given how many opportunity to attack a person each animal has based on how many there are and how close they are to people.

Basically, the lead should do nothing more than fairly summarize the contents of the article that follows. The article does not say that while people fear wolf attacks, such fear is not founded in the evidence. The article says that wolf attacks happen, are more or less likely to happen depending on certain factors, that they used to happen a lot more often than they do now. The article doesn't say, but I would like to add, that, especially as we go back in time, there must have been more and more attacks that occurred that Wikipedia doesn't know about. So for us to imply to the readers that a wolf wouldn't attack a person for some reason when pro-wolf experts are telling us the opposite is wrong. Chrisrus (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with and like your careful edit!! Let me emphasize that contents of lead (as of particular moment) are mostly derived from editors other than myself, and strives for an extremely brief and compressed summary of the article's contents, with which editors can agree. Certainly I did NOT write lead sentence, but one seeks to retain content as editor.

What you may add, I can edit for clarity and length.

Perhaps more productively, you can challenge/discuss more specific elements of current article, rather than lead?

That may result in a more understandable basis for challenging current lead. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

As I read it, clauses summarizing the body, first section, that could be worked into the lead (lede) include:

• • “Wolves can, have, and do attack humans”,
  • “Certain factors make wolf attacks less likely”
  • “Certain human behaviors cause wolf attacks to be more or less likely”
  • “the frequency of wolf attacks varies greatly with historical periods and geographical areas”
  • “Experts are still entertaining explanations for the harmlessness of wolves” (posture theory) – Comment: THIS IS NOT TRUE. Mech now only addresses why they are so much less dangerous in North America than elsewhere. (end comment) –

Most of the stuff above the first section, the other paragraphs in the lead section, all these cited statements, should find their places in the body of the article, and be only briefly summarized in the lead. This lead is too long and detailed. In the lead, we just give them the gist or gists; the main points they can read about in detail in the body if they choose to do so. Chrisrus (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Chris: I've tightened the wording of what you just added, expanded it slightly and corrected the source.

I probably disagree, mostly, about the lede.

Current lede, in 12 sentences, provides hard numbers on attacks in recent history, offers some context & why they happen and that there is a degree of debate and uncertainty. It pretty much covers entire contents of article -- as it should.

I think it's a fairly brief and complete package.

Would you add things or subtract them? What exactly -- and why? 76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Chris: To try and accommodate your recent point, I moved one sentence from lede into body of article; specifically, the one which elaborated on the point concerning "other large predators" which is established by first sentence of lede. I fully agree that that sentence was overkill for lede. Is quite compact now. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Geist/Graves, etc.

& Just to go on about Geist/Graves a bit: I've been reading Geist in more detail. His basic points essentially agree with Mech's 1998 view. Yet the TONE of Geist's writings on wolves are striking for their abrasive stridency. He even veers at times toward conspiracy theory.

The title of one of Geist's main essays, "Let's Get Real," hardly suggests a scientific approach, but rather early stages of a conversation that turns into a bar-fight.

Compared with a range of other available sources (some making same basic points), Geist is best not taken seriously. And record does suggest that he has NOT been taken seriously.

Perhaps his bellicosity and belligerence (especially frowned upon culturally in his adopted home of Canada) resulted in Geist's complete disqualification as "expert witness" in Kenton Joel Carnegie affair. Certainly his commentary on this matter, had a distinctly bitter tone with which some may object.

Of course, the judge apparently merely noted that Geist hadn't published peer-reviewed science regarding wolves.

I did read essay by Paquet, the provincial scientist in Carnegie affair, and its tone was also suspect, though in opposite manner. I don't totally trust either of these guys. On the other hand, the Wikipedia Carnegie article suggests to me, anyway, that Paquet had the slightly better argument vs. McNay (Perhaps McNay also had "agenda.")

I am complete novice, but I've had some expert field instruction -- and been struck (and dumbfounded) by similarity in field between tracks of black bear, cougar and those of large dog.

I equally distrust both Bibikov vs Pavlov. I suspect some sort of rivalry between them that is ultimately trivial and related to Russian cultural context (of twenty and more years ago) that was relatively corrupt. Bibikov as a source for this article, however, is quite significant. He was an authority in his own right, elevated even further by the U.S. Fish & Game bureau. We have little or nothing at present for sources on Pavlov, other than Graves.

As for Graves, as an authority, just in my PERSONAL estimation, he doesn't even rise to level of Geist. Because of Geist's efforts, an obscure company in Saskatchewan published Graves' book (and it soon went out of print and sold from Graves' basement). That's about best means we have for evaluating Graves as a source.

Obviously, these are merely personal opinions based on reading the sources. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

What's the significance of these personal opinions in terms of edits to the article? Are you trying to say we shouldn't use certain sources? Do you have other sources? Please be specific and WP:USEFEWWORDS. Chrisrus (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It may suggest an informed approach to the evaluation of sources, but merely represents my personal thoughts.

By the way, PLEASE DON'T DISTORT CHRONOLOGY OF DISCUSSION!! It's very confusing and misleading.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Current lede & rewrite

To restrict article to gray wolf is best avoided and might disqualify many current sources that do not draw this distinction.

Certain material now in lede should unfold in body of article, rather than in what strives to be a concise summary.

Allowing a few salient facts to "speak for themselves" is more informative and effective than subjectively characterizing and interpreting such material. "Modern times," for example, is phrase loaded with several definitions, none of which are specified and all of which are, for sake of simplicity, best avoided in lede.

Perhaps past sixty years should receive greatest emphasis on lede. Article is not actually titled "History of wolf attacks," thus implying at least slight emphasis on animal behavior over deep history. Moreover, speaking VERY generally, post 1950 data is sufficient from behavioral POV and a bit more reliable than stuff from 1580.

History should get receive its due attention in body of article.

Apart from lede, one thought concerns placement of "Quality of Data" discussion.

Linnell and McNay, following very sound logic, each placed similar discussion ahead of their presentation of data. Such an approach is, for obvious reasons, probably invariable in similar sources. Likewise here, such discussion should precede any use of the data cited in body of this article. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If you scroll up a bit, you will find there is a section already open above to discuss the lead (lede). If there is already a section open to discuss a topic, please use that. There are more than forty sections open on this page, this is not good to the extent that there are not as many topics. Chrisrus (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"There are not as many topics"............. as what??

Please continue normal practice of adding comments chronologically, thank you!! In on-going discussion, chronology is much more important to context than heading. For example, we may have discussed Grandma's health last year, but context is now different.

Perhaps we can archive earlier discussions, if you like. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Optimally, one discusses here, then edits, then repeats.

So before editing more, I will try to lay out more of my thinking and allow some time for further discussion. But if my comments are flipped into various places far above, you see, locating and interpreting them with regard to present context becomes nearly impossible and not worth while. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There are not as many topics on this page as there are sections.

You are demonstrably mistaken about what constitutes normal talk page practice on Wikipedia. Take a look at some talk pages. See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales for example, or really any active talk page. If someone starts a new topic/section below an on-going discussion, the on-going discussion does not start up again below the new one. It stays in its section. That way, to name one benefit, more than one discussion can go on simultaneously. To name some more, one discussion does not interrupt or disrupt another; someone can start a topic and then a long time later someone can reply even though others have spoken about something else since; someone can easily read and follow the discussions later; and many more advantages I could name. Please abide by normal talk page procedure as we agreed.

Yes, we should archive all discussions which are resolved, completed, or closed.

You are right: some edits should be worked out on the talk page beforehand.

Don't worry, if you want to continue or join any discussion on this talkpage, as long as you follow normal procedures people won't get confused. It happens all the time on discussion pages all over Wikipedia, so you have nothing to worry about. Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I've consolidated "debate" and "quality of data" sections and moved the resulting section much higher.

Excellent president for this action is suggested in Linnell, et al., as well as McNay. Ordinary logic also suggests, that relevant caveats regarding data from sources are presented before discussion of such material is presented.

I presented these suggestions earlier, above, and have seen no objections.

Also, I moved some material from "debate" into section regarding "Russia." 76.250.61.95 (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

From a writing standpoint, current lede sentence is a true clunker, taking passive voice and saying almost nothing of direct substance regarding article. Sourcing will be quickly evident to interested reader seeking content. Title is "wolf attacks," not "Those who study wolf attacks and therefore may constitute sources for an article about wolf attacks."

Lede should cut to chase. Especially first sentence.

Also, separately, the editor who doggedly insists on term "modern times," mistakes its actual meaning, thus harming content. "Modern history" begins around 1500. The term creates needless confusion - and editor's intended meaning can be recast in other, more precise and accurate words.

Along these lines, practically speaking, worldwide records of past sixty years are of greater value and credibility that records from a half-millennium ago. Contemporary period should be mentioned first. Note that I'm not opposed to mention of the far earlier records, all of which are from the so-called "modern period" according to accepted definition.

Finally, I'd much rather see actual discussion of edits --- sted of comments re. methods of indentations on a talk page.

PS: I may have limited computer access until Jan. 7, & hope to mostly take a break from this article until then. I look forward to its continued improvement.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

rus & soviets

All this sordid material about Graves/Geist vs Bibikov is very cloudy and dubious. If you want to include one, then you simply must include the other. In effect, they almost cancel each other out as reliable sources. Bibikov may have the slight "upper hand," in that his letter was published in part of a key US F&W document and also in that his credentials are far superior to section, relative to Graves/Geist. Personally, I smell a rat on both sides, but one must merely take it all at face value.

I suggest killing all of this, and developing entirely new material for section, purely based on Linnell.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you first accept that wolf attacks are real and then work on the article. Twisting the sources to fit your preconceived notion that they are the stuff of fairy-tales is not improving the article. Chrisrus (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

so many bullets

Title of article is clear & logical, grammatically, regarding subject, verb and object. The object is "wolf," an animal; verb is "attacks," a behavior. Subject is "humans" although it could be "deer," or what ever. You assert topic encompasses more than animal behavior (a science). This assertion is illogical. Perhaps changing title (and topic) of article can address the problem.

It is NOT controversial to say that F&W Service represents the mainstream in wildlife biology. You assert that a non-scientist (Graves) who contradicts mainstream science, is NOT a fringe theorist. This assertion goes somewhat beyond the illogical, rising to the irrational. Giving equal treatment to fringe theories is not a sound approach.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You've got the grammar all wrong. The title, "Wolf attacks on humans", contains no verb. "Attacks" in this case is a noun. You almost got there when you equated it with another noun, "behavior", but not quite. To say a word is a verb and then equate it with a noun is contradictory. "Wolf" is not an object of anything, it is an adjective describing what kind of attacks. "Humans" is not the subject. It is the object of the preposition "on", with the entire prepositional phrase acting as an adjective to further narrow down the types of attacks being discussed. Further, there is nothing illogical about including all information, whether historical, anecdotal, scientific, or whatever, under the title "Wolf attacks on humans", when the information is in regards to "wolf attacks on humans".96.36.99.177 (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Where does this fact go?

Readers of this article should be told that, last January, a "super pack" of 400 wolves laid siege to the remote town of Verkhoyansk, forcing locals to mount patrols on snow mobiles until the government could send in extra help. [1]. Surely readers of this article should not be kept ignorant of this fact. Chrisrus (talk) 05:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I read it and I don't think that there is anything in there about attacks on humans. And the "lays siege" title really doesn't reflect what is in the article.....basically that the area became inundated by wolves. An interesting story for a wolf article, but IMHO probably not this one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right of course, it does not belong here because this is about attacks on humans, only. However, if you, like me, have looked about for WP:RSes about wolf attacks, you will have noticed that much of the object of interest in wolf attacks is about their effect on livestock and other domesticated animals. Furthermore, the effects of wolf attacks on wild animals, such as their effect on elk, caribou, bison, and so on, have been the subject of scholarly interest. Yet there is no article on Wikipedia about wolf attacks on any other animal except humans. It seems there should also be an article about wolf attacks in general, a la dingo attack as a sort of parent article, and then perhaps one about attacks on livestock, and another about attacks on wild animals, because for every study about wolf attacks on people, there seems to be one or more about another kind of attacks. Chrisrus (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess that attacks on people are of particular interest.

Since wolves exist by being a predator, nearly every meal that they eat by definition is and by necessity must be an "attack". (they don't have our option of the drive-through at McDonalds ....now I feel fortunate  :-)  :-) ) But the topic of preying on livestock is huge and important in any discussions on wolves. It has an immense impact on local attitudes, and on a wide range of other topics and courses of events related to wolves. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if someone really wants to go through the effort of creating a separate page for such attacks, I'm sure there's more than enough sources to pass GNG, but it's likely to be an involved article to maintain (and prone to the same kind of contentious editing from those with extreme perspectives on the subject that we've dealt with here of late), so whoever creates such an article is taking on some work. In the meantime, our main grey wolf article already has an appropriate enough section, "relationships with humans", with subsections for livestock and dog predation and hunting that could easily accommodate this information. It is a rather extreme case that should probably be noted somewhere. Snow (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Quality of Data and Debate Section

The effect on the reader of the "Quality of Data and Debate" section should be more in line with a holistic overview of the available sources. The title itself seems to be calling into question whether the rest of the article should be taken seriously or not. If one reads the references available here, we can see that, while there once were some experts who questioned whether a wolf would attack a person, those very same experts have conceded that they do. If there are any major experts who still hold that position, Wikipedia is unaware of them.

Take for example the first sentence: "Because attacks are unusual and sometimes poorly documented, wolves' danger to humans is debated."

This seems to be saying that there isn't enough proof to know whether wolves pose a danger to humans or if they don't pose a danger to humans. Where in the sources do we find experts still expressing uncertainty that they do? At this point in their discussion, they are more focused on the conditions that make wolves more or less danger to humans, and how best to avoid attacks. They aren't discussing whether the danger exists or not. There was a time when that was the case, but he basically conceded in the first decade of this century that he was wrong.

This article maybe should tell the story about how this debate went down, blow by blow. It should not cherry pick quotes out of order to give a false impression that there's any support out there for the "harmless wolf" theory anymore. The entire section should be deleted and maybe' re-done as a sort of "intellectual history" if you will, of the evolution of thought on this referent; i.e.: at one time it was thought that...., then, the thinking changed to...., then such and such happened.... Today, this is where the thinking has settled." That type of thing would maybe be useful. Chrisrus (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with turning it into what you call an "intellectual history". In it's current state, it reads like Ray Comfort's introduction to On the Origin of Species (i.e., don't believe any of this!). Also, the Russian part is a mess, as it focuses on Graves vs Bibikov rather than actual Russian history.Mariomassone (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

We agree on Russian section. Graves/Geist vs Bibikov effectively make fools of each other and their value is thus diminished to near zero. Linnell is source.

Data and Debate section closely follows practice of the article's two major and most important sources; primarily and foremost Linnell, et al., as well as its secondarily major source, McNay. Moreover, ANY piece of writing presenting any data, would logically discuss origins and limitations of such material, prior to its presentation. Presently, section relies heavily on Linnell, McNay, and paraphrases their relevant ideas.

It is quite appropriate, given actual sources of this article, to emphasize Linnell's commentary, and secondarily, that of McNay. Changes to this existing emphasis would best be done with a significantly different structure of article's present sourcing.

Carnegie case must obviously be included and discussed in a neutral manner.

Rather than "create false impression" that there is "harmless wolf" theory, section actually recasts what has been the earlier and inaccurate "strawman" portrayal of Mech as "harmless wolf" theorist, and instead represents his evolving ideas. There is no such theory, according to sources that are cited, and if section is unclear on this, it should be changed, or sources added for support.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a very false impression. For example, let's look at the first part:

"A group of Norwegian scientists said...conflict existed between "lay knowledge and scientific knowledge" regarding danger posed by wolves."

A likely reader might well parse that as comparing legends and proven fact"; i.e.: wolf attacks are not real.

"The group said its compilation of more than 1,000 reports....was intended as politics....rather than to adhere to science",

i.e.; those 1000 attacks never happened, as opposed to what the report was actually saying, which is that those 1000 attacks actually did happen.

"The group said wolf attacks are rare and pose little practical danger",

I.e.: No need to be wary or cautious in wolf territory, go ahead and act like they did in those provincial parks because a wolf wouldn't attack a person. Exactly contradicting what pro-wolf experts are urging us NOT to believe!

This section is very deceptive and dangerous to any uninformed reader in wolf territory. It should be removed right away! Chrisrus (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, let's look at the gross distortions in the second paragraph. It says

"Most available data "come from times and places where modern forensic methods and standards of checking data do not exist," according to this Norwegian group."

First, again, it's far from clear that all of these authors are Norwegian.

Second, the context of the quote is this: they are saying that to limit knowlege of wolf attacks to ones those confirmed by modern forensic methods is to erase all knowledge of wolf attacks before a certain date, yet historians have attest to the reality of wolf attacks before the modern period. But set up in this context, the reader would tend to understand it to mean that there might have been no wolf attacks before modern forensic methods!

It goes on to say "These Norwegians broke their data into three categories: 1) scientific, 2) historical documents, and 3) other "non-technical literature" including newspapers."

This is true, but the effect on the reader in this context may be "this is the claim of a handful of "Norwegians", as opposed to simply true, as if there were some doubt.

Next, in this context to might imply proven ones, proven, iffy, and iffier. Yet this actually happened. Is there some doubt that the Aishat Maksudova attack occured? There are many reports known only from press accounts that it's not reasonable to question.

Next, the report is quoted as identifying "nine generic sources of potential error; including attack versus scavenging, problems with oral tradition, euphemisms and superstition, and mistaken identity." and noting that A "degree of uncertainty exists" in nearly all of the hundreds of reports included in its summary, the Norwegian group said."

This implies that their findings may be ignored by the reader. But their point was, if you read it, these are the things that they had to look out for, and that all the attacks they list had been checked for such problems and passed with reasonable certainty, so the reader should be reassured that they did actually happen.

Remove this entire section on the grounds that it inaccurately characterizes the source. Chrisrus (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Next, the section says "Scientists worldwide at times debate the degree of rarity with which wolves attack humans."

But familiarity with the sources demonstrates that this debate has changed, with previous claims being withdrawn by Mech and others. The sources do not justify this statement, and it is too vauge, leaving the false impression on the reader that the theory that wolf attacks are not real is taken seriously by experts in the field.

The section says "For example, a 1944 work compiled by Stanley P. Young & Edward A. Goldman, reviewed accounts of 30 North American attacks occurring before 1900, including six that may have been fatal" but hastens to add that "Whether these reports are the product of a fertile imagination or are truth is difficult to determine," Young wrote in a preface.

Notice that the red link to Young is allowed to stand, implying that he was not a notable person, but Edward Alphonso Goldman is not linked to, as if he weren't a highly notable and respected biologist.

Next, well, that is presumably why none of those thirty attacks nor that work has anything to do with the attacks in this article. But maybe it should be, because it definately proves that people back in wolf times here believed in wolf attacks and told stories of wolf attacks. But anyway, if those attacks are iffy, why mention them here and in this way? It implies to the reader that wolf attacks are merely the product of fertile minds of uneducated people, which is the opposite of the truth.

For these reasons and more, section deletion is in order. Chrisrus (talk) 07:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a substantial section with a lot of good work in it and which addresses an important area. It could probably use some work, fixes, evolution etc. Blanking the entire section is not a useful (or normal-process) way to accomplish that. We should discuss / work on it / fix / improve it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I just gave the section a couple of reads. I think that the bulk of it is a mix of material which makes various points in all directions and has no particular bias. But the beginning (which many would see as an overview) is ONE of these particular viewpoints and so I think that that accidentally gives it some bias. IMHO and introduction paragraph should be written and inserted at the beginning, ahead of that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

On closer look, that first paragraph makes no sense as written. It basically says that the group was criticizing itself. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you feel that way. Please continue to research this and consider undoing your revert of my edit eliminating this section on the grounds that it grossly distorts the sources from which it is taken, marshals cherry-picked quotes into a biased defense of the discredited notion that experts still disagree that wolf attacks are real and under certain circumstances are a matter of rational concern, even at times alarm, and are instead the stuff of fertile imaginations, fairy tales, and so on; basically a scoffing off of the rest of the article. There is no longer any more skepticism among experts about the reality of wolf attacks and how serious they can be than there is about bear attacks or shark attacks.

There is a story here to tell, about how thinking about wolves and wolf attacks started out one way, changed, and changed again, and then arrived at the place where it is now. Some of this might be useful for that purpose in this article. Unfortunately, this deceptive section recently added by an IP address with a transparent agenda (scroll up), could be deleted on many grounds, including original research by synthesis, or unfair summary of sources, and others. Chrisrus (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

To continue, let's look at the next part, where it says "Perhaps similarly, L. David Mech, an influential wolf biologist in the early 1990s, wrote of receiving “20 to 30 reports" of fatal attacks annually from India, but noted that none were "investigated by competent biologists." Six years later in a follow-up, Mech wrote that many such attacks had subsequently been confirmed. In the same 1998 essay, Mech wrote that wolf advocates—including himself—may have been guilty of hyperbole in using the phrase “there has never been a documented case of a healthy wild wolf attacking a human in North America.”

On the other hand, here is what happened, as I gather it:

Mech had always loved wolves, so he became a wolf biologist. He approached his field work with a confidence and presence and in such a way that some wild North American wolves, so famously wary of humans, finally allowed him to approach enough to habitu them to his presence, a la Jane Goodall and the chimps or some such. Very dramatic story.

From this unique standpoint, he was able to learn great new things about wolf private lives everyone wanted to know and were interested and thankful, so he became and is one of the world's greatest experts on wolves.

However, this experience, he says now, gave him the false impression about wolves in general, he himself says this now. Not all wolves react to all people the way those wolves reacted to him, so Mario rightly left that out of the recent overhaul. His vision of wolves changed because of what happened next.

Next Mech was invited to speak to and meet with other experts, he learned from them and studied new things that came to light, thing that he couldn't learn from his direct experiences with his pack. To his credit, he withdrew earlier remarks and explained himself. Now he instead advocates for due caution when people are in wolf territory because he says wolves do attack people. That's where we are today.

Now, we could drag all that up about him by name and re-hash it in the article, or we could not do that; it depends; I'd have to see it. I don't think this section tells that story well here at all. Also it seems unnecessary diversion from more important things about wolf attacks and might cause a reader to misunderstand and dismiss Mech's work in way that would be too broad or inappropriate. Remember his brave endurance of great hardship to gather knowledge about wolves and continuing fine career from which we here in this sector of Wikipedia benefit widely, and leave Mech's early comments out of the article. Chrisrus (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

My edit summary at the time says it all "Undid mass deletion. Blanking the entire section is not the right was to deal with a debate over potential issues in it. Let's discuss and work on it in talk.". I have no strong feelings for or against the individual items in there. I am just trying to help have a good process in place here. North8000 (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. Very well then: if you will, please redo the section deletion if your own research and hopefully my replies above and below have been persuasive. If not, please, if you would, do continue your own research and read on below and be persuaded to undo your restoration of the section. Under the circumstances I think it would be best if you removed the section this next time. It'd be more effective, don't you agree, if you rather than I deleted the section that I've already deleted once. It gives stronger consensus that way, don't you agree. Chrisrus (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Diane K. Boyd

Next, the section says "Separately, biologist Diane K. Boyd complained that such hyperbole may have helped form unrealistic public expectations regarding wolves, and risked creating an eventual backlash against conservation efforts."

As I said here some time ago (scroll up), Diane K. Boyd is a wildlife biologist from the School of Forestry at the University of Montana, Missoula. She studies wolves, and has published papers such as "Characteristics of Dispersal in a Colonizing Wolf Population in the Central Rocky Mountains" Journal of Wildlife Management, 63(4):1094-1108. Please read this piece below by her, published as a case study in an important college textbook on the topic: http://sites.sinauer.com/groom/article.php?id=24 It's a short and easy read. An article about her in Sports Illustrated shows her to be a life-long pro-wolf expert who has long lived in Montana in a remote wilderness area with more wolves than people.

The paper above as you will see if you read it says people should know that modern naïve beliefs about wolves not attacking people by nature make such attacks more likely, which will in turn will cause anti-wolfism, if you pardon the term, among the people, which in turn will hurt the wolves. The wariness, concern, distrust, that comes with knowing that wolves do attack, on the other hand, will keep people and wolves apart or people prepared and alert, and thereby help Save the Wolves from post-attack backlash: http://sites.sinauer.com/groom/article.php?id=24

"Beginning in the 1970s, strong anti-wolf fears were moderated by increased ecological awareness and counter-balanced by the emergence of pro-wolf adoration. The phrase “there has never been a documented case of a healthy wild wolf attacking a human in North America” became the mantra of individuals trying to create a more positive image of the wolf. These educational programs contributed greatly to changing public attitude and enhancing wolf recovery efforts. Wolf–dog hybrids and pet wolves became popular, as people began to idolize wolves as wild, clever, and human-friendly. Ultimately, the elusive wolf of the extirpation era became the wolf of modern memory that people believe represents “normal” wolf behavior...." ".....The wolves of Algonquin and Vargas Island exhibited bold behavior for weeks or months before the attacks occurred. Therefore, those injuries would probably have been preventable if humans had perceived the wolf as a wild predator rather than a thrilling campsite visitor... ...The challenge to wolf managers and conservationists at present is to avoid creating public fear of wolves, yet paint a realistic picture of wolf behavior in the hopes of reducing human–wolf conflicts and subsequent wolf mortality..... ...The conundrum is that we have managed wolf recovery so successfully that conflict situations arise more frequently and we must anticipate potential backlash by the public to avoid slipping back into an anti-wolf fervor. New efforts to educate the public about the nature of wild wolves, particularly emphasizing their differences from domestic dogs are working. People are warned to take reasonable precautions, and reassured that these alone should prevent conflicts with wolves. Still, helping maintain a balanced relationship between humans and expanding wolf populations will remain a significant conservation challenge. "

Proposed Section Deletion

Ergo, we still have no sign of true debate or questioning of the quality of data proving that wolf attacks are real and of concern. Therefore, we should remove/replace that section as soon as possible. Chrisrus (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'm of two minds on this subject. On the one hand, this section nominally addresses a major shortcoming in the article that has been obvious in the context of recent discussions -- specifically the chimera-like manner in which wolf aggression has been perceived in the last century. And the history of these oscillating perspectives is in itself valid and important information that should be included in the article, just as the history of the debate on global warming/climate change is useful information, even though certain assumptions in said debate have been shared in common by the vast majority of climate researchers for decades; whatever the current thinking, the debate itself is likely to be of interest to those who want to familiarize themselves with the broader subject and it's well-documented enough that we can do so with adequate sourcing.

On the other hand, the section clearly was written in such a manner as to imply much more controversy and ambiguity in the current understanding of the subject than even remotely exists amongst experts in the field, which is clearly your main objection, Chris. But these problems arise not from having such a section in general, but rather from the edits of one editor who is clearly more than willing to misrepresent the sources in order to suggest support for the pre-conceived narrative he has with regard to this subject, including a number of perspectives that are otherwise not supported by valid sources. Said contributor has been so disregardful of the principle of verifiability and resistant to the process of consensus, and his behaviour on this talk page over the last few months so disruptive in general, that I believe eventually an admin will probably need to be consulted to evaluate the possibility of a topic ban to preserve the integrity of the article, after which the process will presumably be vastly smoother. However, getting back to the central subject, I don't have a major objection to the blanking of the section, though it had parts I thought were quite well written; however, whether adapted from this version or written from that ground up again, I think a section covering the history of the debate is a valuable (arguably essential) addition to the article and as such should be added again as soon as we can all agree on the wording. If for no other reason than because the extremist perspectives ("wolves are basically harmless" and "wolves are blood thirsty man-eaters by nature") are still well-represented out there and those of our readers who are familiar with them are likely to be confused by or distrustful of our information if we do not explicitly show how those ideas arose and how they became discredited. Snow (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There are limited sources.

Main issue is how to represent discussion of Linnell, et al.'s section regarding sources. I think it's presently accurate and fair.

Much more minor points: Mech is shown to evolve regarding danger of wolves in circumstances presently limited to [[South Asia] But which he suggests can exist elsewhere. Mech accurately points out the millions of "visitor days" to wolf habitat in N.A. without incident.

Previously, article presented a COMPLETELY INACCURATE and unfair representation about Mech quote regarding notion that "wolves never attacked humans in North America" or whatever.

Paquet and his collegue gave their best estimate of a circumstance, and were second-guessed by McNay, a year later. McNay convinced very dubious "jury."

Unlike Paquest, McNay didn't visit scene, and had recently published historical study of wolf attacks. This suggests McNay had vested interest in a particular viewpoint. His employer, moreover, sponsors wolf hunts to further the interests of ungulate hunting. This further impinges McNay as objective scientist.. Paquet, on the other hand, has made statements that are deeply open to question regarding his objectivity. But I think this is minor point. 108.204.142.171 (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@Snowrise, you are right; an accurate narrative of the evolution of thought on this topic could make a fine addition to this article. Or not; it depends, I'd have to see it. But please don't let that which might be even better be the enemy of the good. It would improve this article to remove that section right away; we can always add a section describing the history of thought about wolf attacks later when it's ready.

If you would like, please remove it from the main space and set aside a special talk page section for editors to work on it. Then, later, when it's ready; we can put it back in. Would that be a good compromise? Chrisrus (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a snippet of the debate in an earlier revision of the article in the North America section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolf_attacks_on_humans&diff=584700539&oldid=584669362

Perhaps it should be brought back. Mariomassone (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts are pretty much along the lines thoroughly expressed by Snow above. Basically that we probably need something like that section but that the current version is problematic. I'll try to pare & help it a little. This is BRD, please revert me if you do not agree.

I made an attempt. More changes probably needed if we keep the section. What do you think? North8000 (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't time nor patience to read latest, muddy debate. Obvious, already, that data discussion should precede presentation of data.

North800's current edit of "Debate" section is mostly a reasonable compromise.

A highly significant debate regarding N.A. incident in Sask. Canada, however, is omitted merely in the interest of avoiding controversy.

Is poor practice--basically dishonest--- to avoid this topic. 108.204.142.171 (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I just did my best. I took out that one incident not to avoid controversy but because giving one wikipedia-editor-selected example covering only one attack didn't seem to fit in a discussion about the overall topic, where the other material is sources discussing some general aspect of the topic. As a sidebar, it was unsourced, although it is presumably sourcable. Again, I have no strong opinions here nor any mental attachment to what I did. Folks should feel free to undo what I did or make further changes. My one opinion is that huge changes should either have consensus or if they are for the first time could be tried on a WP:BRD basis. And this opinion is just to try to help have a normal process in place at the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but don't you think that the "huge change" that should have been worked out on the talk page would have been the addition of this section in the first place? It's not too late. Just remove the section in question, paste it here, and we can work on it. Chrisrus (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

C. Douglas Clarke

To continue, the section goes on to say "In an earlier and separate matter, Canadian biologist C. Douglas Clarke concluded that historical attacks in Europe were mostly a result of rabies. Clarke further suggested that a series of 18th Century attacks in France were by wolf-dog hybrids. At least one contemporary writer who disagreed with Clark, said Clarke’s speculations had been unduly influential among North American biologists. Along with Clarke's theories, other unproven hypotheses were offered to explain why reports of attacks had been relatively more common in Eurasia than North America."

Several points: first, is it clear what the "earlier and separate matter" was? Earlier and separate from what? And who is C. Douglas Clark, I can't find that exact name on Google Scholar nor on just regular Google as clearly the referent of this name. On what basis did he suggest that all those thousands of recorded wolf attacks in Europe were all rabid attacks, or that some French attacks were hybrids? What was the context in which it was spoken? Is it clear that he had enough basis for the statement? Citation needed, please! We need to see who said this, if they said this, and whether it bears repeating here, as it undermines the validity of much of the rest of the article, are we giving it undue weight?

We then say that "at least one contemporary writer" said not to pay attention to this Clark person. We normally don't publish the opinions of individual unknown contemporary writers, but if what we call Clark's "unproven hypotheses" are mere speculations as we say, should we have mentioned them?

Then we introduce more of what we declare to be "other unproven hypotheses" about why wolf attack reports are more common in Eurasia than America. Now, you and I may happen to know that the North American habit of carrying guns are the most common explanation for that. Are we deliberately avoiding telling the reader this because we worry that it may affect the gun control debate or something? I don't know, but informing the readers that there are speculations is so unenlightening as to leave the reader more confused than informed. Chrisrus (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Any claim which is the least bit contentious, is not properly sourced, and makes reference to unknown authors as their proponents is of course fair game for removal. Given the degree of difficulty we are facing with keeping this section clean and consistent with the information from sources we do have, I say don't even pause when it comes to these particular claims. I'm planning on reviewing the section in question and reading more of the sources available in detail in the next couple of days and may make some revisions myself, but in the meantime, you're certainly on firm policy grounds removing anything problematic that is unsourced. Snow (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)