Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:53, 15 November 2013

Dogs B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Dogs To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Dogs: Recent changes patrol: members can review the recent changes list to be aware of improvements or vandalism. Expand and improve citations: Akita (dog), American Bully, Artois Hound, Azawakh, Barbet (dog), Basset Fauve de Bretagne, Bavarian Mountain Hound, Bearded Collie, Beauceron, Berger Picard, Black and Tan Terrier, Black Norwegian Elkhound, Border Collie, Border Terrier, Bouvier des Ardennes, Bouvier des Flandres, Braque du Bourbonnais, Brazilian Terrier, Briquet Griffon Vendéen, Brittany (dog), Bullenbeisser, Bull Terrier, Ca de Bou, Cairn Terrier, Cardigan Welsh Corgi, Campeiro Bulldog, Central Asian Shepherd Dog, Chilean Terrier, Chow Chow, Colombian Fino Hound, Corsican Dog, Cretan Hound, Croatian Sheepdog, Czechoslovakian Wolfdog, Danish Spitz, Dingo, Dobermann, Dogue Brasileiro, Dunker, East Siberian Laika, English Cocker Spaniel, English Foxhound, English Toy Terrier (Black & Tan), Erbi Txakur, Estonian Hound, Estrela Mountain Dog, Finnish Lapphund, Flat-coated Retriever, French Bulldog, Galgo Español, Gaucho sheepdog, German Hound, German Shepherd, German Wirehaired Pointer, Glen of Imaal Terrier, Gordon Setter, Great Dane, Greek Harehound, Griffon Bruxellois, Guatemalan Dogo, Gull Dong, Halden Hound, Hamiltonstövare, Hanover Hound, Havanese dog, Hokkaido (dog), Hovawart, Ibizan Hound, Icelandic Sheepdog, Indian Spitz, Irish Setter, Irish Terrier, Irish Water Spaniel, Istrian Coarse-haired Hound, Jagdterrier, Jämthund, Kai Ken, Karakachan dog, Karelian Bear Dog, Karst Shepherd, Keeshond, Kokoni, Kooikerhondje, Koolie, Kuchi dog, Kuvasz, Labrador Retriever, Large Münsterländer, Lucas Terrier, Magyar Agár, Miniature Bull Terrier, Miniature Fox Terrier, Mongrel, Mountain Cur, Northern Inuit Dog, Norwegian Elkhound, Norwich Terrier, Old Danish Pointer, Old English Bulldog, Old English Sheepdog, Pastor Garafiano, Pastore della Lessinia e del Lagorai, Patterdale Terrier, Pekingese, Perro Majorero, Peruvian Hairless Dog, Petit Basset Griffon Vendéen, Pharaoh Hound, Plummer Terrier, Plott Hound, Polish Greyhound, Porcelaine, Portuguese Water Dog, Pudelpointer, Rajapalayam dog, Rat Terrier, Saarloos wolfdog, Sabueso Español, Saint Miguel Cattle Dog, Šarplaninac, Schipperke, Serrano Bulldog, Shikoku dog, Skye Terrier, Sloughi, Slovak Cuvac, Small Münsterländer, Smithfield (dog), Smooth Collie, South Russian Ovcharka, Spanish Water Dog, Standard Schnauzer, Swedish Vallhund, Tatra Shepherd Dog, Terceira Mastiff, Thai Bangkaew Dog, Tibetan Mastiff, Tibetan spaniel, Tornjak, Weimaraner, Welsh Hound, Welsh Terrier, West Siberian Laika, Westphalian Dachsbracke, Xoloitzcuintle, Xigou Stub class articles in need of development: Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, Argentine pila dog, Armant (dog), Assyrian Mastiff, Banjara Hound, Billy (dog), Braque Dupuy, Bruno Jura Hound, Bulgarian Scenthound, Ca Rater Mallorquí, Calupoh, Campeiro Bulldog, Can de Chira, Cane Paratore, Cantabrian Water Dog, Chortai, Córdoba fighting dog, Denmark Feist, East European Shepherd, English Shepherd, Faroese Sheepdog, Gończy Polski, Grand Griffon Vendéen, Gull Dong, Hanover Hound, Hygen Hound, Japanese Terrier, Kaikadi (dog), Kars dog, Koyun dog, Kunming dog, Kurdish Mastiff, Levriero Sardo, Mahratta Hound, Majorca Ratter, Maneto, Markiesje, Molossus (dog), Montenegrin Mountain Hound, Rampur Greyhound, Romanian Mioritic Shepherd Dog, Sapsali, Sarabi dog, Schweizer Laufhund, Segugio Maremmano, Segugio dell'Appennino, Sinhala Hound, St. Hubert Jura Hound, Taigan, Tatra Shepherd Dog, Tazy, Toy Bulldog, Treeing Cur, Vikhan Sheepdog, Westphalian Dachsbracke, White Shepherd Suggested Featured Articles due for re-assessment: Beagle (2007) Suggested Good Articles due for re-assessment: Swift fox (2008); Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (2009); Clumber Spaniel (2009); Russian Spaniel (2009); Sussex Spaniel (2009) Requested images: Briquet de Provence, Denmark Feist, Erbi Txakur, Jeju dog, Kaikadi (dog), Kars dog, Koyun dog, Levriero Sardo, Liangshan Dog, Perdigueiro Galego, Segugio dell'Appennino, St. Hubert Jura Hound, Tarsus çatalburun, Tibetan Kyi Apso, Vikhan Sheepdog, Villanuco de Las Encartaciones

Death B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Findnotice

Shandong

The map in the Grey Wolf article says that wolves don't live in Shandong. Well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.26.120.40 (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Doubtful Reports

There are 98 reported attacks listed. It appears that of these, five, more or less, were clearly confirmed by modern wildlife biologists, and nearly all of these were attacks by captive wolves. Many of the remaining reports appear as hearsay and are without scientific value.

I clicked on one promising-looking source and found merely a rabid screed favoring a petition to "de-federalize" public lands in Oregon. So obviously forget that one.

There are many supposed attacks from remote areas in Asia. Doubtless some are correct. But from what I've seen of the Indian press, much if it is highly unreliable, as are government reports in China. As I understand it, in many of these regions there is widespread belief in witchcraft and magic, making observations by natives potentially unreliable.

There are also many, many reports from the dim reaches of history. For Heaven's sake, why is there nothing on the Wolf of Gubbio?

Junk

Graves' book on wolves in Russia has never been reviewed nor even mentioned by a reputable publication. It's apparently laughable.

This article is riddled with pure junk.

It probably can't even be salvaged.

A few examples:

"Range Magazine" is an unreliable source.

"Pro Save The Human Species" is an unreliable source.

"Abundant Wildlife Society of North America" is an unreliable source.

"W.I.S.E." is an unreliable source.

"Skinny Moose" is an unreliable source.

"FreePress Kashmir" is probably an unreliable source.

A letter from "Lars Mangus Hagelstam" is an unreliable source.

Unpublished rural "church records" from the 18th Century are an unreliable source.

WP:RS

I just found the following on Google Scholar, so we normally assume assume that they are WP:RS:

1. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=wolfrecovery
2. http://re.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Large%20Carnivores%20and%20Human%20Safety.pdf
3. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40510359?uid=3739832&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102588725781
4. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13921657.2003.10512541#.UioH-r7D_mI
5. http://books.google.com/books/about/Wolves_in_Russia.html?id=q2ImAQAAMAAJ

Chrisrus (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure that in itself if Google Scholar --essentially a robot-- scoops something up one can therefore infer much about its contents.

Presumably this article is about animal behavior, a science,& so peer-review comes to the fore in the proper selection and weighting of "reliable sources." This is separate from elimination of unreliable sources.

Only one of these sources you mention was on in the shameful list above it-- that would be the book on wolves in Russia. It's reasonable to suppose that if that particular work had any significance to the study of animal behavior & biology, then relevant publications would have reviewed it. Perhaps you can check Google Scholar.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you interested in re-writing this article? There are several peer-reviewed peers available, and we have news reports and such that are also WP:RS. Chrisrus (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice board

I put something up on the RS notice board, which is probably useless.

To answer a question, privately asked: In my view, an 1888 item from a defunct newspaper (which I haven't read) is a historical document, whatever else it may be. As such, perhaps it could be considered a "primary" source, but if so, a great example of why use of primary sources should require considerable caution and back-up with secondary sources.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Why should this article exclude events cited only to WP:RS news reports, while other such articles, (List of fatal bear attacks in North America, Fatal dog attacks in the United States, Coyote attacks on humans, and so on) are allowed to include them? We have been collecting all kinds of fatal and other notable animal attacks on humans from news media, not to mention all other kinds of events known to Misplaced Pages only through news media, yet for some reason this article should disallow such events? Chrisrus (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of material

This is an article on animal behavior, a science, and as such, included information ought to be scientifically verifiable. I removed a portion of the material that doesn't (can't) meet this standard. Assuming my premise is correct, then there is much more work to do.

If my premise is somehow mistaken, and this article is NOT about science, then please elaborate and explain reverts or edits based on an alternate premise. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Science, yes, but also history. We know about these events through not only scientific but also historical documentation.

The problem seems to lie in the fact that many experts are also enthusiasts. When you love something, you tend to know more about it than people who don't care about the topic. The world's greatest experts on a topic often love the subject and would repress negative information about or try to portray it in a certain, biased way.

Wolf experts are mostly wolf lovers and can be quoted as calling them "majestic" or state that it's important to save them and help them expand. We do not pass along these quotes. They make many statements of fact that we include, but when they say they are "majestic", we choose not to pass that along to our readers because that's not a fact, that's how the expert feels about wolves. Neither do we pass on their opinions that they are important and good and beautiful and that everyone should support foundations that promote their re-introduction. We just deal in facts.

Many wolf scientists are out to save the wolves where they live and to reintroduce them where they do not. This is going to be very difficult to do if the public know about these incidents. The public would tend oppose the wolf lover's agenda if they knew that these things have happened. So they do not pass along the information in these news reports and historical sources to the people, explaining that they as scientists cannot confirm their authenticity. But we do pass on the information from news reports to the people because we do that all the time all over Misplaced Pages in articles on all types of subjects. We don't just cite scientific sources, we also accept historical sources. So many wolf experts ignore or deny these events, we do not and should not. Chrisrus (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

politics etc

See, now you're almost immediately getting into your OWN politics on the topic.

You say scientists are ignoring data. Can you back up that statement with a reference? Perhaps you mean that political, wolf advocacy groups are ignoring data? I would imagine so. Just as anti-wolf groups do.

I've suggested that in lede, we include info from Alaska Wildlife Dept. (perhaps not entirely neutral and nonpolitical, but at least an agency nominally driven by science), about a non-trivial number of wolf attacks accepted by a modern biologist, based on well-defined criteria.

Now, as to history sources, one can get, for an extreme example merely used for illustrative purposes, any number of historical documents from "authorities" confirming instances of witchcraft... (even to the present in parts of Asia).. making use of them in an article concerning witchcraft history is certainly not impossible. But NOT in the way historical documents have been used here.

You ask me to back that up with citations:

http://sites.sinauer.com/groom/article.php?id=24 says "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."

Yet http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn90059522/1888-03-08/ed-1/seq-5/ is a documented case of a pack of wild wolves eating two people alive, with an witness and investigation from a 1888 newspaper. Both facts can be simultaneously true if the word "documented" means "documented to the satisfaction of wolf scientist" or some such definition that says the newspaper report does not constitute documentation. Chrisrus (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There is still LOTS of work to be done on this article. If one goes about the work as a political statement, then the article might remain poor quality. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

reverts

I see there are two other editors who disagree with me, although they haven't tried to explain their views. In fact, one revert note said that I hadn't explained my edits.

Obviously my efforts have been insufficient. I will back off the article and perhaps suggest a dispute resolution of some sort. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wolves in Russia book

I must correct myself. There is a review of this I found via ProQuest in a professional journal. However, as book is written by a linguist and is based largely on anecdotes collected

from strangers, I think it should receive little weight.

My point about referencing historical documents as if they can be fully relied upon as purely factual still stands. The Bible says Jesus walked on water. I don't buy it, but hey, they published it so it's source.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC

Trying to solicit an RFC that may or may not result in additional comment.

Frankly I think there is inadequate range of views represented here. Probably is quixotic on my part. Idea that scientists suppress data suggests to me a conspiracy theory view of world that may be unreasonable. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If one could broaden the RFC list from science to include "culture" and "history" and even "politics" this exercise could be more useful and appropriate. I simply don't know how this may be accomplished. Obviously topic of wolves includes (for many people) something more broad than animal science.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If you were not so belligerent you might find people willing to discuss things with you.Graham1973 (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to get people to comment on. The article reads fine to me, it doesn't seem to have any POV issues i.e. suggesting wolves always attack people or never attack people. Reading above, it seems you are suggesting that all reports of wolf attacks that were not documented/verified by scientists or met their criteria for a wolf attack (witnessed, wild wolf, not provoked, etc) should be removed? In that case, I disagree. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 19:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow either - which suppressed data are you referring to? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Same Question Here. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment of the FRC

What is the issue of the RFC? I see no statement of dispute. The discussion below is about sources. Well, there are wikipedia policies, right? Can the dispute be more specific, please? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the comment above, what is the issue in here? I just see a question, but what is this RfC all about, if there is no conflict, warring or dispute I'm going to mark this as resolved. Eduemoni 12:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent??

Perhaps some objective criteria can be established with regard to science vs. unverifiable historical documents.(See witchcraft, Jews & etc.). For one example among others: Ought one accept unpublished 16th Century rural church records as scientific account?

Significant aspects of this article cite science. Certain other aspects of this article, which are extensive, amount to a mere political screed with little regard for science. Ought I defer here to "consensus" of several people? Or ought I seek other views?

76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Note the source here numbered 62 and 64. This is apparently part of series of unpublished & perhaps quixotic letters to the European Commission by Magnus Hagelstam, whose credentials are unestablished. In these letters, Hagelstam complains that "Finnish conservation authorities, scientists and publicly funded conservation organizations are producing slanted and outright false information to the Commission, presenting the wolf as an endangered species and one that the rural population can learn to live with." And elsewhere "a destructive ideology is spread in the EU and in USA through lies and despotism."

In other words (I think), Mr Hagelstam sees a conspiracy theory.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Re-write coming up

Just to calm some tempers here, I've been re-writing the article in my sandbox, disavowing the cases reported in the right wing blogs and Hagelstam letters, unless they're reported elsewhere on more reputable sources. Note that so far I have only been working on the lists and not the body of text itself. Mariomassone (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent.

Anything we can only support with "Groundhog Day at the Wolf Wars" has to go, you'll agree, but let's try to find its references. I wonder if you saw I found the 1880 Olsen newpaper report, but not the 1770 smallpox Indians cited to Peter Kalm. I found the book, , but I gave up because at this point I don't think the 1770 smallpox Indians are in that book. I could be wrong, because Google Books are hard for me to search, so you or any reader of these words is welcome to try.

Have you found the 1829 Inuit woman? I was going to try tonight. Chrisrus (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a reference on page 150 of that book, and a mention of wolf on the same page, but I can't see enough in snippet view to really decode what is being discussed.--TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 04:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I had the same problem. You may have noticed that it's not page number 150 as printed, but the one hundred and fiftieth page of the Google Book, which seems to include the title pages and such. Chrisrus (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

needs work

Thanks. CITATION LIST IN THIS ARTICLE IS A MESS. This is not really open to dispute. A great many citations mention dead links. Some of this material remains available at other links.

Please consider also disavowing the cited left wing blogs.

Thorny issue that CAN be disputed is historical citations. Simply implausible that this article's editors have personally visited various rural churches in N. and eastern Europe to view these purported unpublished sources from 16th Century or when ever. SO WHAT works are TRULY BEING CITED??? At best, we have notes from un-cited source.

I imagine similar dishonest thing is operating with this article's non-English citations. I suspect they are drawn mainly from Will Graves, although Graves' work itself is said to lack sourcing and his deep POV and credentials can be debated, along with editor, the dubios Geist.

That said, I personally DO think deep historical sources are valuable and interesting. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a question - Who are you? I do not trust people who cannot be bothered to register. It is too easy to sockpuppet or stage a pseudo-debate this way, so who is behind 76.250.61.95? Graham1973 (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You edit under you name and date of birth, he edits under his IP address, which, if you Google it, is in East Lansing. So let's call him Michigan. Either case, we still don't know who you are. Try ignoring who posts or edits and focus solely on what is said and done. Chrisrus (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

76.250.61.95, can you reply to our conversations instead of constantly creating new sections? It makes it impossible to follow the discussion otherwise. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 04:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

76.250.61.95, none of us have been looking through 16th century church records, they are simply cited in books. You may dismiss them as unreliable, but that's not a view taken by the Norwegian Institute of Nature Stuies (the group that brought us The Fear of Wolves: A Review of Wolf Attacks on Humans). Here's their position: Given that being killed by a wolf is a very unusual event it is unlikely that it would be used in cases where the true cause of death was trying to be hidden (e.g. a suicide). In other words, priests and administrators would have little to gain by claiming that somebody was killed by a wolf when they weren't. These data sources are regarded as being relatively reliable.Mariomassone (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it may be seen as a "reliable source," although the reports are unverifiable as anything like a solid "fact" as one would ordinarily accept beyond a reasonable doubt. (X dies in the woods; body is scavenged by wolves & obvious BUT wrong conclusion is drawn by an unknown country parson, four centuries ago in back country of Eastern Europe. Will just add worthless personal opinion: that in face of death, people tend to get unreliable.)

We are looking at a large region of Europe with sizable population over a period of centuries beset by continual epidemics large and small, and coming up with basically a tiny number of cases(statistically speaking) that are extremely wild exception. Speculating personally here, perhaps what is ferreted out from "historical record" of many millions of deaths, is just meaningless statistical noise in death reporting. For example, can one find a greater number of deaths in "the record" of this period ascribed to witchcraft? Jew-eating babies? Etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.95 (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It may be that the Norsks were attempting to draw patterns from the aggregate, rather than significance from individual incidents.

I just don't think it's responsible to present each incident from a deeply obscure sources as historical "fact" without at least some kind of disclaimer. ("Relatively reliable" compared to what?) Maybe I'm wrong about my view of how to treat primary historical documents. Maybe the Norsks were wrong? I guess if it's published by somebody, anywhere, no matter the context, then my concern is a totally moot point and it's a "Wiki-fact?"

Also the citations perhaps ought be not a citation of a citation, but rather the Norsk report itself, or whatever,

76.250.61.95 (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's not such thing as a witch, and wolves are real, so you must be saying that wolf attacks on humans are not real. So you must be saying that, for example, this never happened. Chrisrus (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If their good enough for the norsk institutt for naturforskning (which is incidentally pro-wolf), then their good enough for me.Mariomassone (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Other reports of deaths

According to Misplaced Pages, between about the years 1500 to 1800, there were at least 40,000 officially sanctioned executions of witches in "the west."

One can reasonably assume, therefore, that during this period there are many "reliable sources" on actual crimes by actual witches, comparable to, or even superior to, many of the wolf attack reports cited by books and reports currently referenced by Wolf attacks on humans.

Each of these various sources may meet Misplaced Pages standards, at least regarding primary sources, as may, for example, books by the Harvard Ph.D Jerome Corsi. But nothing necessarily precludes applying a standard here that is higher than nominal minimum Misplaced Pages definition.

A discussion might focus on reasoned use of primary sources, not least in light of folkloric nature of topic at hand.

In general, my concerns are EXTENSIVELY explained and perhaps reasonable. These issues certainly have not been seriously discussed in any depth on this talk page.

Yet in several weeks since I've raised these issues, content has not been altered apart from my efforts, which have been reverted with comment that my edits are "unexplained." Is this an attempt at irony?

This talk page seems deeply broken. The process isn't working. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I think Wolf attacks on humans is very

minor vehicle for "anti-wolf" faction as exemplified by "Abundant Wildlife Society, which I think is cited somewhere in article,

Presenting unsigned, unformatted comments again...? Graham1973 (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

AWS site presents article on its Web site that goes on and on about pre-modern societies' reports on wolf attacks.

. This feeling is based partly on political comments made by at least one editor above.

Perhaps I can now proceed with editing the article? I gather at least a couple of Misplaced Pages editors would simply prevent this.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's not such thing as a witch, and wolves are real, so you must be saying that wolf attacks on humans are not real. So you must be saying that, for example, this never happened. Chrisrus (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The abundant wildlife society and such may be removed but statements cited to them should be instead cited to the source from which they came if they are WP:RS. It's my impression that you want to re-write the article to remove all reference to attacks from the newsmedia, is that correct?

A better point is probably how to treat primary sources that are often wildly doubtful. Most of the many sources I flag in this article pre-date "newsmedia."

However, "newsmedia" prior to 1960s in America, was an utter swamp toward which it is rapidly returning. I cannot comment on newspapers, etc., from other countries such as India, other than to note I've had some great, private laughs reading the Indian English press.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, taking in this page in its current state, I suspect that the issues you are having with getting your position understood have more to do with your combative tone and the disorderly nature of your argument and formatting on this page than they do with secret agendas or other editors being non-communicative. That being said, I understand your core argument -- sources which meet general verifiability standards may still contain apocryphal accounts, especially with older sources. There is one story that stands out as particularly worth taking with a grain of salt: "11 wolves killed before wolves devour him!!" (ok, emphasizing exclamation marks mine). However, the bulk of this article reads with commendable neutrality and is immaculately sourced. If anything it takes a very reserved position with regard to how common these attacks are. Any culling of the content on the questions of the "sounds exaggerated" variety ought to be minimal and selective. However, I for one am not entirely opposed to adding a comment or two within the body of the article about the nature of the sources, where appropriate. Snow (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Attacks we know from Mader's paper to be lost?

It has been pointed out that WOLF ATTACKS ON HUMANS By T. R. Mader, Research Division, although the first hit I had tonight on a Google Scholar search, might not be less WP:RS because it was published by the Abundant Wildlife Society, a known anti-wolf organization. Therefore, let’s see what claims it’s making and try to track down the sources so that we won’t be citing the AWB, but citing the same sources it cites. That way, we can remove Mader’s paper from Misplaced Pages yet not lose any wolf attacks that we should be including in this article.

The first claim to fact Mader makes is this: “It has been widely discussed whether a healthy wild wolf has ever attacked a human on this continent. In fact, many say such attacks have never occurred in North America.” Can you, the reader of these words, cite this claim? I think there’s a citation for this claim on this talk page; scroll up.

The second claim he makes is this “History states otherwise. Although attacks on humans are uncommon, they have occurred on this continent, both in the early years of settlement and more recently.”

The first North American fatal wolf attack he lists is the 1888 Olson deaths. We already have a replacement citation for that one in the article, so let’s move on to the next.

The second is John James Audubon’s story about an African American killed and eaten by wolves while two witnesses in Kentucky near Ohio in winter 1830. Mader says this can be found in “The Quadrupeds of North America, 3 volumes. New York, 1851 – 1854”. This is very little help, Mr. Mader! Not no page number, not even which volume! Can you, reader of these words, track down this wolf attack?

The next attack he attributes to George Bird Grinnell, in northwestern Colorado. 1991. An eighteen-year-old girl on her way to milk cows in the morning summer 1881. The girl was saved by her brother but not before being badly hurt. Mader offers “(Grinnell, G.B.; Trail and Campfire - Wolves and Wolf Nature, New York, 1897)” Let’s include all wolf attacks we can cite well; this is important! There is no reason to limit this article to fatal attacks. All attacks significant enough to be recorded by great experts should be included. Chrisrus (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

To save time (and my energy ;) ), please add these further attacks (the fatal ones for now) to my sandbox. Mariomassone (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Very well, but please all readers of these words do be informed that we are moving the discussion there. I would just like to point out, however, that doing so probably reduces the number of people reading the discussion and therefore reduces the chances of getting help tracking down the citations needed for some of these attacks if we are no longer going to be able to use the AWS and other such references. Chrisrus (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Abudand Wildlife Society

Seems like this is maybe one or a few people that are on extreme right wing and their view

is dominating content of this article. I've seen in Alberta, and on east side of Olympic Penninsuala, and probably many other locations, that elk are creating public health & safety problems... Yet certain hunter groups go crazy against wolves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Bird Grinnell on the Nature of the Wolf

@User:Mariomassone;

I found this and thought you might be able to use it. It's called "Wolves and Wolf Nature" by George Bird Grinnell.

More recent experts have had more shoulders to stand on; some of them surely have spent more time in the company of wolves than Bird Grinnell. But none of them can claim to have personally interviewed as many homesteaders, woodsman, naturalists, frontiersmen, and so on; people with extensive experience sharing environments with thousands of wolves in widely varied North American contexts. Therefore, in this way, modern wolf experts may not know wolf nature as well as he.Chrisrus (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment on RFC

Comment Sorry, but although there seems to be some serious attempt at WP sabotage or trolling going on here, I am not sure what there is to be done, given the current climate. If some of the good-faith participants think it might help, they might consider raising the matter at WikiProject Dogs, and seeing whether the necessary discipline could be imposed. Joining the shouting match at this point in response to the RFC I received seems to me to be futile. Good luck to any constructive participants. I am otherwise occupied at present. Sorry again.

Missing comments

I'm seeing mentions of edits to the talk page that do not show up when I actually visit the talk page. What gives? Graham1973 (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is strange! What should we do?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

edits to this page are not visible when one visits it. Chrisrus (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed The issue seems to have been that the IP put in a ref without adding a reflist. Unfortunately, when I fixed it, because signing was somehow disabled during those postings, it auto-signed me as the author for each. I'll try to insert the appropriate names by comparing edits against the version history, but it will take time and there will be no timestamps, since none were ever generated to begin with. In the meantime, if anyone wants to take ownership of their own comments, that would work too. Snow (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Now I can actually read discussion.

Commentary

Listen: this article may have begun life as re-write of screed from "Abundant Wildlife Society," which apparently exists due to a tiny group of deeply paranoid elk hunters in North America. Article doesn't exist to document the science of animal behavior. It' about politics designed to manipulate Misplaced Pages.

I wish to make two points: This article is about science and yet is deeply political rather than scientific in its provenance and thus sources are suspect: Also, secondarily, that it utterly lacks reasonable context.

A significant part of its sourcing is drawn from weird, POV-type sources, rather than the small community of legitimate wildlife biologists.

Regarding context: I certainly know that Dog attacks on humans happen each day, often with tragic consequences. Highly reliable reports of Deer attacks on humans are almost certainly far more abundant than those concerning topic at hand (especially if you consider "deer" in larger context of species, to include moose, etc). Yet neither article exists on

WIKIPEDIA.

So why does this article exist on WIKIPEDIA? It's merely an argument for killing wolves in a couple of areas of U.S. where disagreement exists.

In part due to its highly doubtful provenance, I merely suggest that this article's sources be severely limited to the few available science papers that are peer-reviewed. Also that citations be accurately attributed to their source, rather than

to the "source of source."

Allow me sarcasm that may be relevant and reasonable: What about articles on rabid Skunk attacks on humans in 15th Century Russia? Raccoon attacks on pre-Columbian native Americans? Or better: Raccoon attacks on humans in post-Nazi Germany? No point.

That's my point. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think you should write different articles for different genders of the humans, the skunks, the raccoons, etc. And in post-Nazi Germany, I think we can all agree that it makes a huge difference what the ethnic and political background of the victims is, so those should need to be separate articles, really. I'm not even touching the age of the victims. Young ones are more tender and delicious. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Better to focus on content? 76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You're allowed sarcasm. There's an option: nominate it for deletion. I can provide an argument: much of the content (wolfish behavior toward homo sapiens) should be in the wolf article, the rest is trivial, of no encyclopedic value. I'm not being facetious, since I am leaning that way myself. (As an IP editor you cannot start such a discussion, but someone could do it for you.) Or you could hope that a discussion on this talk page bears fruit. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

To destroy this article, start a deletion discussion, not by editing it. But deletion request will fail because we have articles such as bear attack, dog attack, shark attack, dingo attack, tiger attack, killer whale attacks on humans, cephalopod attack, coyote attacks on humans, and so on. So we also have wolf attack.

Thank you for pointing out that the article needs work, but we have several good WP:RSes here and are working to replace the weaker ones by tracking down thier references and using those, where appropriate. So your objections have had a positive impact. Chrisrus (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

break

Thanks. So to cite the citation you found in a book or article is doubtful and perhaps a bit dishonest at best. If you want to cite the book or article, then do so. Or go off to Russia and look up the hand-written church records.

This evening, I briefly discussed the use of primary sources with a history professor. I directly asked whether a country pastor's record of a wolf attack from 300 years ago could be considered a "fact" that could translate into science of animal behavior. He said ideally, one would look for corroborating records, then apply judgment and consider the context. He mumbled something about "residual animism" in pre-modern Europe and concluded by saying essentially, "there is no simple answer to your question and I am not a scientist."

Somebody here says that talking with "country folk" or whatever, provides better insight

into animal behavior than those gained by biologists. I've spoken with a fair amount of "country folk." They tell me that auto insurance companies are secretly financing government introductions of mountain lions to reduce payouts in deer-auto collisions. A fair number believe the United Nations has a military base in Texas and it's only a matter of time.... 76.250.61.95 (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Where are we citing a country pastor's record from 300 years ago?

The references we are trying to track down in Mader's paper and such are the published sources he refers to. We aren't going to be able to cite direct conversations with witnesses or victims he might have had or documents he personally has. They'd have to be published somewhere else. Otherwise we'd be publishing his original research. We can only transfer citations for those attacks from his paper to published sources that he cites.

I didn't say that talking with "country folk" provides better insight into animal behavior than that gained by biologists. I said that a biologist with access to contact to many different kinds of people who have lived with wolves in their environments in many different contexts might know more about the relationship between people and wolves than a biologist without that. Biologists interested in the relationship between species and people in an environment do interviews with people there that have direct experience with said animal and, by doing that and other things, they arrive at findings and then publish them somewhere. We should use published sources, only. If those sources based their findings on primary sources such as church records or whatever, and then published those findings some in some reputable place, we should use it. Chrisrus (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The article directly cites four "church records" from long, long ago. The Norsk paper seems to a signicant extent build around these kinds of records. God knows where some of the other articles and books are getting their information.

Also, despite Misplaced Pages policies, many newspapers were notoriously unreliable sources of information even into the mid-20th Century period. For example, Hearst newspapers treatment of the Spanish-American War amount to valuable documents of some sort, but may tell little about historical events. In some sense even reliable contemporary news reports are merely "primary sources:" As the saying goes, "a first draft of history."

Chrisrus has said above that he believes scientists seek to suppress relevant information.

I've merely said, consistently, that this article is about animal behavior, a science, and sources should carefully reflect this.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who added the church records, but unless they're included in the other Scandinavian documents, they won't be added. Mariomassone (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

New and Major compromise proposal

Argument that article is "about science" is something You Can't Win (book). Available suggested compromises I find are unsatisfactory.

Let's fundamentally change and very much BROADEN FOCUS of this article to include folklore. Let's define in lede that topic includes science, history and folklore (also politics????) and define each discrete element of article. If nothing else is clearly an important topic of folklore and to ignore this is in some sense dishonest. Regarding "history," many sources are of difficult nature, which should be explained in article, along with a distinction of topics of science and folklore & etc.

Adding category of "folklore" (politics???) opens up sources very widely. It adds valuable perspective on the topic of "wolf...etc"

To start, I suggest, at minimum, that this article include an account of Wolf of Gubbio. This is among the most extremely compelling, culturally significant and enduring stories of wolf attacks on record, and I assume well-sourced in church records. I suspect it reflects some sort of actual wolf attack on humans, along with various miracles of St. Francis (adding, appropriately, topic of religion).

I am here being utterly serious. This change of focus would lend valuable context to the article and highlight its basic ambiguity. It would also open the article to many, many sources that are currently utterly neglected or in dispute.76.250.61.95 (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It depends. There's the long-standing and common precedent of the "In Popular Culture" section, pretty much always tagged onto the ends of articles. Something like that has proven impervious to objection. If the effect on the reader is to depict wolf attacks as mere myth, I'd revert because there were two boys killed this July in Kashmir. Chrisrus (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

In principle, I don't see any reason why such content shouldn't be included; as you say, it can only serve to provide context and such elements seem consistent with the title of the article to me. But I do have a few caveats. First, as Chrisrus has already pointed out, we can't allow these new sections overwhelm the page and provide the impression that the concept of a wolf attack is completely a product of myth, as this clearly untrue. However, there's no small amount of controversy over the rarity of these attacks -- as you obviously know, since highlighting these conflicting perspectives is clearly a central element of what you are wishing to include here. Providing a section for the history of the debate itself, as well as the pre-existent historical context of the wolf's image throughout the world, can only strengthen the article.

But this brings us to my next caveat -- this will all need to be supported by strong secondary sourcing. And since you are the primary proponent of this new approach and content, a lot of that research and work is going to fall on you. It's one thing for us to agree in the abstract to these additions, but nothing can really be decided until we see the quality of the sources you turn up and the wording of the new content. In any event, it's a good idea to get everyone on the same page and add something of significant value to the article, so I wish you good luck with the effort. If and when I have some time, I'll try to unearth some sources as well; I have a small collection of texts on ecological history, and if I find anything of value therein, I will let you know.

Edited to add: Bear in mind that we do already have this article -- Wolves in folklore, religion and mythology. This does not, of course, preclude adding elements of folklore to this article, given you are proposing a more refined and particular discussion of a particular element of the mythology, but I think you should be prepared to face opposition from those who will find such content here redundant and will argue for keeping a purely scientific focus here. I'd be prepared to put in some significant time trying to convince others of the use of this expansion of perspective. Snow (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

My personal preference has always been for, as you say, a "purely scientific focus." But within the article's 71 notes, there are perhaps a half-dozen "scientific" works cited. The remainder are other than science-based. Removing them is apparently impossible.

Hence a suggested compromise. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, when you put it like that, it doesn't sound at all like an appropriate approach. The references which do not directly cite scientific research are still largely concerned with empirical matters and with the subject of actual attacks, not the mythology surrounding the species. If it is your position that the referenced material is not to be trusted to provide accurate information, then you ought to be taking aim at the reliability of the sources themselves. Of course you have done a fair deal of this, only to find your impressions at-odds with the consensus view here. If you really wanted to add a "mythological and cultural influences on the perception of the danger posed by wolves" section in this article, it would be defensible, but you'd have to do the leg work of finding valid sources to support the content added. What you cannot do, is add a mythological section unsupported by sources, purely for the purpose of trying to paint the sources that represent actual attacks as apocryphal. Of course, from your comments bellow, it is clear that you never really thought this mythology section was a good idea; you were just using it as a passive-aggressive means to try to leverage the change you wanted to introduce.

Honestly, I don't see any problem with introducing a view that is skeptical of the likelihood of wolf attacks (those views exist out there, amongst preservation groups and in academia), but YOU MUST PROVIDE THE SOURCES. Stop trying to remove content that is well-supported by valid sources (that's not going to happen), or to change the tone of the article to subjects not covered by the sources (that's not going to happen), or to delete it outright (that's just not going to happen) and instead perhaps focus on introducing alternative views so that our readers can be aware that the subject of the propensity of wolves to attack humans is a matter of some debate. Stop trying to tear down useful information and add some instead. Frankly, I don't see this page as particularly anti-wolf; it lists a couple of dozen attacks over a period of centuries, during which billions of human beings and at least hundreds of millions (if not billions) of wolves have coexisted over large portions of the planet -- that to me seems to support the idea that wolf attacks are immensely rare. But it seems as if to you that any reference to a wolf attack as anything but myth is unacceptable, which is frankly bizarre; we know these attacks to have occurred, there's simply a question of how common they are and in what context they are most likely to occur. This article could be augmented to take a closer look at those issues, but nothing you've done has gotten it even marginally closer to that; in fact your presence here so far has frankly been nothing but disruptive and probably more likely to entrench other editors in contrary views than anything. I really think that perhaps you need to take at least a small break from this, familiarize yourself a little better with the process of editing on Misplaced Pages (particularly with regard to WP:Consensus), and then come back when you've got an approach that tries to provide balance to our representation of the prevailing viewpoints, rather than trying to override the article with your own perspectives, in contradiction to the positions of our sources.

On a sidenote, I'd like to ask that you also pay a little more attention to how you indent/format your posts; it takes a miniscule amount of effort and keeps things from degenerating into the mess that each of the threads you've participated in has become.

Edited to add: It is worth noting that, putting the sources aside, there are a few sections which are not really informed by any sources which could arguably be worded more neutrally, particularly in the lead. Mariomassone's draft is so far missing this section, so it will be interesting to see what he does with it. Mostly that draft seems decent enough, but for the critical "types of attack" section, which sets the tone for describing the context, likelihood, and severity of attacks, there is one important source -- "The Fear of Wolves: A Review of Wolf Attacks on Humans" -- which is no longer to be found at its cited address. This doesn't disqualify it as a valid source, of course, but it would be nice if we could find an alternate location for it, both for our readers and our own editorial considerations, given that it informs arguably the most crucial section of the draft. Snow (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

See Last Entry

I finally agree. Let's NOT compromise with folklore and marginal history.

Instead, definitely let us exclusively employ sources that are "science focused. Forget Little Red Riding hood and stuff about religion. This article exclusively concerns science of animal behavior. Let's remove all other sources.

Thing is, search of title exclusively turns up various, deeply politically motivated weird screeds. And among them, THIS Misplaced Pages article. That's why this article exists. And why maybe, it ought not exist.

I await promised re-write with much hopeful (and doubtful) anticipation. Deletion may be better answer. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this article is not exclusively about the science of animal behaviour. It is concerned with any facts which are relevant to its title, and scientific, historical, political, cultural, and mythological elements are all permissible, so long as they are well-referenced and contribute something to the understanding of the subject. Even apocryphal tales could be included, so long as they were clearly noted for what they are and are sourced. So, no, we will not be removing perfectly valid content and sources just because they are inconvenient to the perspective you wish to push. If you can prove any sources invalid, that's one thing. But you can't constrain the content of the page and toss out useful information because it runs contrary to what you feel should be the way the wolf is perceived. You keep implying that this page is nothing but politically-motivated misinformation, but frankly there is no other editor here who seems to be nearly as inclined to put their abstract position before the sources than you. If you really want to protect the wolf's image in this article from what you feel is undue maligning, then you should feel free -- no, encouraged -- to find the appropriate sources which present contrary views and add that perspective. But so far you seem to be unwilling or unable to do that, and instead are focusing on trying to dismantle the work of others or outright eliminate this article. And at the risk of sounding very redundant, that's just not going to happen; this page is notable and it is well sourced and does not meet any other criteria justifying deletion. The best you are going to get in this situation is some balancing of the tone (not that I think this page really even needs it that much) and even that only if you or another is willing to do a fair bit of research to turn-up the appropriate sources. And if that slight change seems like small return on that much work, all I can say is "Welcome to Misplaced Pages." In the meantime, please do refrain from suggesting courses of action which you do not actually support simply as a means of voicing your disapproval of the current state of the article or to try to undermine content you do not approve without a good policy reason. Snow (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Put this on your watchlist:

Remember: User:Mariomassone is re-writing this page here, so let that inform discussion on this talk page. Chrisrus (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I really can't work my way entirely through Snow's indignant screed.

Like me, first he wants article to be "science focused."

But then says it can include ANY information he deems relevant to this aspect of animal behavior; scientific, apocryphal or whatnot.

Optimally, if you want, as highly dominant editor Chris has claimed here to hope, that "the public will not accept wolf-lovers' agenda if it is known that wolves attack humans," then merely sticking to science literature is more than adequate for this goal. This despite Chris's stated believe that science suppresses evidence on this topic.

Good bottom line is that pseudo-factual list of attacks should be deleted or severely cut based on sources.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

At no point did I say I wanted anything with regard to this article, and certainly not that it should contain only a scientific bent. I'm simply trying to explain to you some of the policies we operate by here that you clearly have a limited understanding of, and I actually supported your notion of expanding the focus of the article before it became clear that you never actually wanted to follow through on this approach but were simply using the idea of it as part of your scatter-shot attempt to leverage change to the tone of the article. But make no mistake, content on this or any other article is not restricted to information gleaned from peer-review articles; this is an encyclopedia and any approach to the subject that is likely to provide general use value to our readers is permissible and appropriate -- again, assuming that valid sources support that information. So, you see, you actually took my position to be the opposite of what it was, despite the length at which I explained the policy issues involved. Look, are there two or three sources here that could probably be done away with on the basis of weak qualification for RS? Yeah, probably, and we can debate those. But the vast majority of the sources are on this article are valid citations and you're just not going to get them removed. As I've repeated ad nauseum now, your best bet if you want readers to understand your perspective that wolf attacks are over-reported is to gather valid sources supporting this position. I don't know if you've tried and failed to find any or if you are just unwilling to try, but if you really want to represent the skeptic's view of the propensity of wolves to attack humans, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face by concentrating on trying to remove content that is protected by policy instead of being proactive and providing a contrary position that will also be protected by policy. And for the record, this is not a wolf-lover or wolf-hater's issue, at least not for any editor that has their priorities straight. Snow (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

To IP address editor in East Lansing

First of all, you'd be more anonymous if you'd sign in under a name such as "MrMysteriouso123" or some such pseudonym of your own invention.

Second, there seems to be no rhyme or reason to your creating of new sections on this page. Please keep the topics together in sections. You don't have to start a new section every time you comment. You can reply to people directly below the post you are replying to. Only start new sections when you want to introduce a new topic or something.

Third, if you want to contribute, go to Mario's sandbox because that's where the revision is being done. I wouldn't recommend editing it directly, first work it out with Mario on his sandbox's talkpage. Editing this page is pointless because it's all going to be replaced soon anyway.

Fourth, Mario will be using proper WP:RSes. He's only going to use the best WP:RSes available. It's what he always does. He goes and collects the sources and transfers what's in them to articles. It's standard operating procedure.

Fifth, if you believe that wolf attacks are only the stuff of fairytales, please stop believing that because it's just not true. Your basic deal seems to be that you don't think wolf attacks are real. Please tell me what I'd have to do to convince you. Let's start with the most recent. The two boys in Kashmir a couple of months ago? Are you saying that neither they nor any of the other attacks happened? How do you explain the reports? Are all these news reporters just making it all up?

Once again, please don't start new sections unless you start new topics. Chrisrus (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious as to whether that is in fact his belief. He's stopped short of saying it for the most part, but it does seem to be the crux of his objection to the known attacks section, part and parcel. Not that any editor's motive should have any bearing on what content is or is not included -- it should be acceptable or not on the basis of the sourcing and consistency with policy -- but it would still be nice to know why he is so adamant. Frankly, as I said above, I think that when a list of attacks by an apex predator number only a few dozen over centuries, that's a miniscule number and the average reader should certainly be able to see that this implies extreme rarity of attacks. So if anything I think that in trying to remove the section he is doing a disservice to the position that wolves are generally aversive to this behaviour. All of that said, one thing that is missing from the current version of the page and Mario's re-write (so far), is a caveat (preferably very early in the lead), explicitly stating that, in the broad context of the wolf's shared ecological history with man, these attacks are extremely rare and aberrant to the normal behaviour of the species, stressing also that most attacks that do occur (and are not caused by rabies) are the result of extreme cases of habituation combined with territorial or food supply stresses. Because while the IP's view is extreme and irreconcilable with the sources, it's also true that the aggression of the species was, for a very long time, often over-sold, especially in certain parts of the world, including significantly in the early history of the U.S.. That's historical context that is definitely worth noting, and as it happens, I have some top quality ecological history texts that would provide decent sources. Once Mario has his draft finished, it's worth seeing to. Snow (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Snowrise:

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:

"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. " Chrisrus (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there's really nothing in that which I find counter-intuitive or misrepresentative of the facts. I simply think that the entire history of human-wolf interaction and the concordant cultural representation of the species -- from antiquity through the vilification of the colonial and early modern eras, and up into the contemporary over-correction that Boyd refers to -- is necessary contextual information that our readers really need to make sense of varied reports. That's why I've been trying to convince the IP to take a more constructive approach in adding some of that information -- it would surely all come from one-side, but so long as they were valid sources, that's perfectly ok, and others of us here could supply the balance -- instead of just trying to take a hack-saw to the content he doesn't like. Obviously that is a fool's errand, but in any event, the quote you supplied above is actually perfect as a capstone for such a section, once synthesized down a little. But we also need references which discuss the wold-eradication programs of the last two centuries themselves -- which, as it happens, I have. I'll format the references and supply them here first opportunity I get. Snow (talk) 16:51, 14 October 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)

Dear 2 person "consensus"

Chris in particular, is quite explicit in his belief that science follows his deeply private and silly conspiracy theory and cannot be relied upon to describe animal behavior. I gather his other cohort in the 2-person "consensus" has a very similar view.

The "consensus" here simply lacks ALL credibility.

Obviously, the article is complete mess and dictated by deep ignorance. This demonstrates how Misplaced Pages can certainly produce a great deal of nonsense and drivel. Why not then, just re-post Abundant Wildlife Society's idiotic article here (which very much serves as its basis), and be done with it?

76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear IP, why didn't you just respond to the topic at hand rather than start a new section, which you've been repeatedly told not to do? Kind regards, Mariomassone (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I do feel that creating new sections it makes editing the discussion much easier for all of us. For example, to reply to you is now very simple. Had I not created a new section, I'd need to scroll through vast amounts of discussion. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well once again you are substituting what you think works best for what is common practice or policy for editing on Misplaced Pages. Look, your approach and behaviour here has been top to bottom disruptive, but your comments immediately above have clearly crossed into violation of a pillar policy that you need to read immediately if you are to continue editing on this project. If you cannot participate here without resorting to personal attacks on other editors when they hold an opposing view -- or rather more specifically, if you cannot make arguments based solely on content policies -- you will be asked to not contribute at all. But honestly, given your attitude here thus far and how you have responded to previous requests to familiarize yourself with how Misplaced Pages operates, I rather suspect you'll not head this advice before it's too late. Snow (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

In his defense, he is right that the article needs work and because of him that's being done now, so don't discourage him too much. Chrisrus (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You do have a point, but that's a part of why his belligerence is frustrating. I came to this discussion as a result of the RFC, but it was a happy coincidence that I happen to have some previous experience with and understanding of the debate surrounding wolf aggressiveness. And despite his perception of my motives (and those of anyone who doesn't agree 100% with his approach), I'm actually quite sympathetic to the idea that the species has been historically vilified to justify mass exterminations and that this continues to colour the perception of the species even today. That's why when he suggested (insincerely, as it turns out) expanding the scope of the article, I put my support behind the notion, because that's what is really needed here -- not needless bickering about a list (that is really quite short when you consider the scope and history of the subject), but rather a discussion of the context of historical reporting on wolf attacks. There are scholars who have built their careers on the subject, so sourcing would not be a problem. But he doesn't want to do the work to actually add something to the page, not even in-so-far as finding the sources for someone else if he doesn't care to write it himself. He's styled himself an expert on the subject, making clear that he finds the page and the other editors here to be ignorant and/or ill-intentioned if they disagree with him even in part, and yet he won't engage in any meaningful discussion beyond the objective he's set his eyes on. He doesn't seem to realize that even for those of us who would like to move the article in general direction of his position A) have a process that we have to follow and policies to adhere to and B) don't necessarily think the article should be taken to the polar opposite end of the spectrum. Wolf attacks happen -- they are rare and aberrant behaviour, but they do happen. But that's apparently pro-hunter "screed" to say even that much. And again, he won't discuss it, despite initially friendly attempts by those here to engage him. He doesn't seem to understand that without that discussion radical changes won't be made. I say if he feels he knows the really real truth that he submit some drafts for discussion, rather than just trying to carve out a huge amount of the references, most of them certainly passing the bar for reliable sourcing, and content. You don't gain balance or really anything by removing information that way and dumbing down the discussion of the subject -- you gain balance by giving additional context and providing all of the voices of the legitimate debate on the subject. If he was really interested in rehabilitating the wolf's image on this article (which is clearly his only objective in being here, though this does not stop him from tossing about accusations of bias at other, more broadly accomplished editors) then he would see that there's a bigger opportunity here to accomplish that. But instead he seems more intent on getting exactly his way on a very narrow objective. I'm just trying to break him of the notion that he's going to get precisely what he wants and immediately, because that's a problematic idea to take around Misplaced Pages. Even widely admired and insanely devoted editors don't get that. This guy won't even meet the rest of the (vastly more accomplished) editors here halfway when it comes to basic discussion and formatting guidelines... Look, we all seem to agree here that the article could use some broadening and also some tightening, but as you and I know, that doesn't just happen. But Mario hasn't even barely begun the first part of hat process (volunteering for a task the rest of us probably didn't want), before the IP is bad-mouthing it, without even seeing it. So yeah, the discussion, and hopefully some good changes, might have resulted from his action, but at the present time he is not really contributing anything constructive to either. So until he studies up on the way we operate here -- especially with regards to how we approach other editors here with WP:Civility and good-faith -- and acclimate himself a bit and maybe decides to contribute something aside from criticism and implications ulterior motives and idiocy, he can just sit here and stew as far as I'm concerned, while the real editors do the work. Snow (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Snow: Mere brevity is a wonderful virtue. Failing this, paragraphs create ease of reading, as does the convention of sub-headings.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

@IP in East Lansing, please move your reply to Snow to an appropriate section. Mario has opened this thread to discuss the structure of the article, so the purpose of this thread is to talk about that, only, and specifically not a place for you to reply to a comment in another section to another person about another aspect of this article. Chrisrus (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Structure

I need some advice on how to format the article; the Italian and Norwegian sources include graphs and statistics regarding the seasonality of the attacks and age demographics of the victims. Should they have their own section, or should they be included in say the section on non-rabid attacks? Some feedback would be really appreciated. What's missing exactly? Mariomassone (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

As for M's question on sources: Perhaps data should be merely divided between contemporary "confirmed" accounts, and a "historical" section, with brief discussion.

Distinctions can be made between those contemporary data vetted by animal-behavior biologists, and those which are merely accepted from dim historical records.

For those who seek to prove that wolves do attack humans, there are EXCELLENT sources already here, from non-obscure and modern scientific records. This would be the "focus on science" that at least one of the 2-3 editors, besides myself, claims to favor (and that one of these few editors says he deeply doubts).

Stuffing all the interesting and indeed relevant "historical" material without distinction into a "list" of fatalities from last several centuries implies that the reader is unable to make obvious distinctions among the data, which are widely variable in reliability.

This is a shortcoming which severely detracts from credibility and the actual content of this article. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

@Mario + everyone: if separating the article into sections based on geography seems to be how it wants to evolve, that's a reasonable structure to run with. Many sources might be specifically about India or Russia or Alaska, and it would be natural and easy to put them into those categories, some of which later might even spin off into sub-articles someday. Some sources note important differences between New and Old World attacks. This has also the advantage of following the rough outlines of taxonomy, subspecies or Northern/Southern clades.

Separating it into types also seems logical. Captive wolf attacks seem a very different phenomenon from free-ranging wolf attacks. Readers might want to be able to concentrate on one or the other of these.

Captive animal attacks would seem to fall into zoo-type and such on one hand, and pet situations on the other. Zoo-type attacks seem like accidents or negligence, someone leaving a door open or kids or drunks sticking their hands in the cages or something like that. Then you have the phenomenon of people keeping wolves or wolf hybrids as pets. This is where this phenomenon begins to overlap with that fatal dog attacks. Fatal dog attacks in the United States tracks fatal wolfdog attacks already. Oh, and also, there was a least one case of a professional wolf handler who went on a wolf-encounter tour, get your picture taken with my wolf for a donation to save the wolves.

Free-ranging wolf (this term or "unowned wolf" seem safer than "wild wolf", as it's not clear that a captive wolf is not also "wild") attacks would seem to fall into sub-types. Rabid wolf attacks are pretty clearly a thing apart. After all, just about any rabid animal will bite just about anything; it says nothing about wolves per se if a rabid wolf attacks. But experts also speak of provoked/unprovoked attacks, and predatory attacks vs. those which seemed more to be attempts to drive off a threat to a litter of pups or some such. Also, I wonder if you, like me, have run across the usage of the term "lifting"; sneeking into a child's room, taking it with a smothering bite, and making off with it in the night. That is a relatively common type in slum or rural India, it seems, where the houses are simple shacks or tents. This is very different from taking on a trapper or mounted policeman or some such adult. Coyote attacks on humans, for example, divides into "On children" vs. "on adults", both because the sources did so and because it just seemed like very different things in terms of seriousness.

Then there is fatal vs. non-fatal.

Another idea is to go from antiquity to the modern day. This would give an opportunity to pass along to the reader what the sources say about the, if you will, "intellectual history" of the phenomenon: in the past, experts felt this way, then, they learned such-and-such, or attitudes changed, and the sources began speaking in this-and-how terms about it, until today there is the way the discussion among experts has gone of late.

I don't know if that helps. It might just make it more difficult to decide, but I hope it helped. Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to use of paragraphs, I gather that Chris agrees that distinctions may fairly be made among the many, many sources. He may feel, therefore (as I do), that the raw "list" is misleading and deeply inadequate.

Perhaps a list of attacks that haven't been confirmed by contemporary science can be included. That would include nearly everything of the current list.

I think article should focus on the many reports that modern biologists have directly investigated. The remainder of stuff should be labeled, somehow, as... the remainder of stuff open to some question.

Existing articles on dog and coyotes (invoked here for comparison, by the 2 other editors) are focused (reasonable assumption) on data confirmed by contemporary authorities, rather than material that is beyond reach of modern science/public health, including history and "developing world." 76.250.61.95 (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It's my impression that Geist has never produced peer-reviewed work on wolves. When formerly active as a scientist, his research was on ungulates. In retirement, he's taken to personal speculation on wolves based on zero quantifiable data. He wrote an introduction to the book on Russian wolves, authored, I believe, by a retired linguist and based, apparently on much hearsay. It's understandable that Geist would have much to answer for as a scientist.

Further, I think it's a given that science doesn't rely on history, and that historians have methods that have almost no relationship to science, nonetheless apply very involved standards for the use of primary sources.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

IP, next time, please place your responses in the relevant sections. This is getting quite frustrating now.

Graves is a retired linguist, but his book is not based on hearsay, rather on zoological writings on wolves in Russia during the Cold War era that had previously never been translated into English. Indeed, the book Wolves in Russia is included in the International Wolf Center's recommended literature page.

North America does not have a monopoly on the distribution of wolf-based information, and as Boyd and Linnell have noted, the North American experience of wolves is atypical to begin with, and should be used in a comparative sense rather than as an overall point of reference.

The topic of wolf attacks is as much rooted in history as it is in science, just as the topic of past epidemics is. As mentioned before, Linnell and Mech are in agreement on this.Mariomassone (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the editors here are in agreement on that point as well, aside from the IP himself. Frankly I find the line he is trying to draw between what constitutes scientific research and what constitutes historical research to be artificial and arbitrary and not all consistent with the way hard empirical work is done in the field of zoological ecology; historical data is not simply dismissed as unable to contribute to the understanding of the subject simply because it was not observed firsthand and in a controlled environment -- even those who work on the more biological side of things and apply the most rigorous standards would not toss the baby out with the bathwater like that. Yes, all data has to be carefully vetted, but this idea that there's a clean line between the two domains and that we would all agree one which points met the criteria for one versus the other is, frankly, just plain silly. Historical record and scientific inquiry are married deeply in many fields -- this is clearly one. It's not like this is a subject like modern materials science, where only recent contemporary investigation would have something meaningful to say. But ultimately it doesn't really matter what we think in this regard; Misplaced Pages policy is pretty clear -- this is broad knowledge encyclopedia, not a scientific journal, and we are expected to present all decently cogent perspectives on the matter, and the more varied those perspectives, the better, so long as they are decently sourced and informative. What beguiles me most is why the IP thinks it would be better to hide this information rather than work in additional context to the article and let them make their own determination on the veracity of differing conclusions about the behaviour of the wolf and when and how it has been exaggerated. It's not our job here to determine which is correct or cherry-pick the sources each of us personally feels best followed the scientific method -- that is outside our purview; rather we're only to present the information that does exist and synthesize it as best we can without sacrificing too much detail. There are reasons for that, even aside from trying to set the appropriate tone for the content of the article -- we would surely never all agree which sources represented the "more scientifically sound" selections, which is why we evaluate the validity of such sources in terms of how consistent they are with policy, not how much they agree with our position. Snow (talk) 03:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

1: Confirmed by modern Science; 2: Reports from History & Developing Wrld

That's a way to divide sources. There is an important and obvious distinction to make. If editors don't make this distinction, the intelligent reader will broadly question the article.

Dog and coyote articles don't rely on sources from medieval Euro peasants or cent. Asian tribesmen.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

What about, just to take the most recent example, the Kashmiri boys, and all the rest which we know about only through news reports? Chrisrus (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to put my foot down, and argue that the verification of historical events lies squarely within the competence of historians, not biologists, in the same way most information on black death victims come from historical rather than scientific records. The Norwegian Institute of Nature Research and David Mech's Wolves book appear to have no problem in accepting this. Indeed, most of the skepticism of the historical material appears to stem from largely Americocentric pre-2000 wolf studies. To quote John Linnel: "North American authors have been aware of stories of wolf attacks from Eurasia - but until recently they have not had access to a review as the language barrier has clearly hindered the flow of information. The problem is that in the absence of a full global review many people have attempted to extrapolate the North American experience to the rest of the world. From our review it is clear that the North American experience is not typical and that when considering wolf management and the risk of human safety we need to consider the wolf in toto."

P.S. IP, the coyote article doesn't rely on European church records because coyotes don't live in Europe, and there were no Europeans in the Americas until a few centuries ago. Plus, indigenous people had no writing system, thus it's not surprising that no records were kept.Mariomassone (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Point of Order

@IP in East Lansing, why did you start a new section? Have you changed the topic, "Structure", to something else? Please don't start new sections without changing the topic or change topics without starting new sections. If you want to start a subsection, do so as I have demonstrated here. Chrisrus (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Very briefly, Chris, due to your recent subhed, I find editing/comment task is substantially eased. Perhaps you are, or not correct. I don't know. Is or/not a big deal.

Anyhow, back to the discussion

As to editor M.'s comments, he is certainly correct that coyote attacks in pre-science era are not relevant. Am sorry that I've muddied the waters.

Dog attacks, however are valid in this context. Why not rely on reports of dog attacks dating from pre-20th Century (pre-science)? Surely they are vast reports in the "historical" record? Or why not in case of "wolves" rely mainly on attacks confirmed by modern science, of which there are several dozen.

(Moreover, I surely find that John Linnel is an interesting source. Merely I suggest here proper weighting.)

BTW, ANY news from Kashmir region (In political dispute among cultures that don't fully accept western science), is much-beset with credibility problems, unless from very few credible western sources independent of regional politics.76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not rely on reports of dog attacks dating from pre-20th Century (pre-science)?

I don't know. Ask the person who wrote the article. I myself don't see why the dog attack article should be used as a model. In fact, no animal attack article has ever reached the status of Good Article, so there really isn't a good frame of reference here. I do however notice that the Shark attack article also includes sources from the 16th century.

Or why not in case of "wolves" rely mainly on attacks confirmed by modern science, of which there are several dozen.

Because no modern wolf-related source (i.e., post "there has never been a fatal attack..." era) uses such stringent criteria. I've already mentioned (twice I believe now) Linnell and Mech having no problems accepting the accounts, so I'll turn to Geist, who explains this pretty well:

The material pertaining to man-killing wolves is not science and can never be “scientific”. To make demands that it be so is based on a mistaken notion of what science is within the larger realm of scholarship. We learn about wolf attacks on humans from a great number of diverse sources, from interviews of first person experiences of survivors, participants and observers, from entries by priests into parish records, from entries by county clerks into county and court records, and the evaluations of such records by commissions, the police, scientists, historians, civil servants and laypersons. Historians have the best tools and background to study such reports and place them into context. Science enters the scene only in that it can pronounce on the same material in a manner historians and other disciplines cannot. And what science can contribute depends entirely on the disciplinary background of the scientists involved. Mariomassone (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Several edits that appear in talk page history are not appearing. What is the problem? 76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I have in front of me "Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages" by W. Graves. In the relevant chapter "Wolf Attacks on Humans," Ten of the 31 notes are from "Hunting and Game Management" which I guess is some sort of Russian publication. Six of the notes are amplification-type commentary from the editor, two are from "The Moscow Hunting Newspaper" and a couple more from publications that appear to be aimed at hunters. Also two from The Moscow Times something from a novel; something from "Military Press, Moscow, 1957," an unpublished letter, a couple of ""author's notes and discussion with Russians..." Large swaths of text in the chapter quote lurid details of wolf attacks on humans without citing any sources at all. So he's a historian? a scientist, or what?35.8.218.49 (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

By notes, do you mean citations? Regardless, "Hunting and Game Management" sounds to me like an official bureau of some sort, and if so, it seems likely they take their data collection seriously. I'd have to see the whole citation though, to get a sense of what manner of source we are truly talking about here. I for one have no clue what you mean by "amplification-type commentary from the editor"; I presume we are talking about sources still? If so, who's editor, Graves? If so, what makes them amplified and can you provide more than a subjective assessment of the author/editors style as to why the sources are untrustworthy? Concerning the "Moscow Hunting Newspaper", it's not necessarily an invalid source just because it happens to be targeted at hunters (and in any event, it's not cited here). Same goes for the other hunting publications you note: A) we can only take your vague assessment that they are targeted at hunters and I think most of the editors here have become wary of assuming your assessment to be neutral, especially when you chose not to name these publications, but did so for the others, B) even if they are targeted at hunters, that doesn't in itself disqualify them as viable sources, and C) they aren't directly cited here in any event. What specifically is the "something" from the Military Press, Moscow? Nothing you've provided on that source makes it sound questionable so far. As to the last, yes, believe it or not, authors are allowed to do their own research without falling into the category of unreliable sources. As to your descriptor of the content as "lurid", I've gotten the impression so far that you consider any source that confirms a wolf attack as real you would describe as untrustworthy and hyperbolic and every single last time that someone here has tried to inquire if this in fact your position, you have ducked the question, so I'm dubious about your claim there. Lastly, an over-arching point - Graves himself is the source cited on this article, not any of those sources you've listed. We tend to assess things in terms of secondary sources (not primary) here and Graves seems to pass the bar in that regard. Now, that doesn't mean some of those entries supported by his work might not be called into question here if we can confirm that they are likely to be false or highly exaggerated, but you're going to have to provide a LOT more than you have there. A good start is to list the citations, in their entirety, exactly as they appear in the reference list and/or footnotes in Graves' work. Then we can all try to have an open minded debate about whether the book should be regarded as an invalid source. Lastly, I don't know how to regard the man's profession; you're the one with the book in front of you and presumably it lists his credentials and goes into some depth as to his process. Snow (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It just so happens that I also have a copy in front of me. Here are all references from the chapter on wolf attacks on humans:

• Editor's note.
• The Large Soviet Encyclopedia, vol. 3, (1970)
• German, V. Hunting and game management, Feb, 1977
• Matusevich, V. Hunting and game management, June 1977
• Gerasimov, Y. Hunting and game management, Sep 1977
• Pavlov, M. P. (1982) The Wolf
• Editor's note.
• Editor's note.
• Author's note.
• Cherkasov, A. A. (1884) Notes of a Hunter-Naturalist
• Djilas, M. (1958) Land without justice
• Wolves and their destruction, Military Press, Moscow 1957, Yu Milenushkin, p. 103
• Makarov, V. Hunting and game management, June 1978
• Bibikova, V. Hunting and game management, Oct 1979
• Author's note + discussions with Russians
• Hunting and game management, June 1980
• Gusev, O. Hunting and game management Nov 1978
• The Moscow Times, 12 Oct 1995
• Semenov, B. Hunting and game management, Aug 1989
• Naumkin, N. Hunting and game management, March 1983
• Ryabov, L. Hunting and game management July 1985
• The Moscow Times, Jan 26, 1995
• The Moscow Tribune, Oct 28, 1992
• The Moscow Hunting Newspaper, 13 Jul 1994
• Hope, J. Wolf Hybrids as pets, Smithsonian, June 1994
• Kamerer, Y. "Suitcase contained wolf's head", The Moscow Hunting Newspaper, Oct 12, 1994
• Dr Walter E. Howard, Professor Emeritus of Wildlife Biology and Vertebrate Ecology, University of California, Davis, letter dated 13 Feb 1997
• Malov, O. et. al. "The age old war", Nature and Hunting, Feb. 1992
• Bunin, I. (1933), The Village
• Editor's note.

It should be noted that the Military Press article was likely part of the so-called Manteifel commission (a summary of which can be seen in my sandbox), judging by its title.

Perhaps it is just me, but I'm noticing a disturbing trend in these IP users to stress the Russian origins of the sources, as if that somehow disqualifies them.Mariomassone (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do that, Mario. As to the IPs, I think they are one in the same person. In any event, I'm not seeing anything in there that suggests that Graves should be dismissed as an improper source. I'll try to put hands on a copy myself to look into the IP's claims of hyperbole, but honestly, even if I agreed with him (and I'm dubious at this point that I'd have the same interpretation as him on any source concerning this subject), I still don't know if there would be a policy argument for removing it. But in the interest of protecting the credibility of the article, it can't hurt to look. Can I ask you, what is your impression of the prose within the book? Does it match the IP's description of "lurid" for you? Enough so that you'd question the integrity of the author to report the facts honestly and without unbalancing bias? Snow (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Although the author does express "disgust" over the North American denial of wolf aggression in the book's introduction, he does state that he does not support the eradication of wolves, merely to illustrate the Russian experience with wolves and how it differs from that of North America (which no one can deny). As to the prose (I am referring specifically to the chapter on human casualties), it is actually mind numbingly dry, with the descriptions of each attack being no more "lurid" than the more graphic descriptions found in the Linnel and Oriani reports (i.e., wolves grabbing children, carrying them away, remains found later etc.). The only times where I'd call them "lurid" is his overuse of the word "terrorizing" and when he's actually quoting other sources, particularly actual survivors of wolf attacks, whose traumatic experience would of course colour their use of language. Overall, while it may be a shocking read to those unacquainted with non-North American wolf literature/behaviour, none of what is says differs significantly from the Indian/Italian/Scandinavian accounts. Almost all of them come to the exact same conclusions, yet I don't see anyone attacking them. It would appear that Grave's book is being targeted simply because it was advertised better and is available to a wider audience than the scientific/historical studies undertaken in India/Italy/Scandinavia etc. Mariomassone (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Point is, the majority (13?) of Graves' relevant citations are of sources related to hunting -- mostly in fact, a single source. This of course would be setting aside the five author/editor notes (which merely amplify points in text) and the cited novel ("wolf hybrids as pets," is also not particularly relevant).

So that leaves him with three Russian newspaper reports (& yes, sadly, the Russian press is often unreliable); one 1957 citation from the Russian "Military Press", an unpublished letter and something called "The Wolf"? Oh, and a citation of "The Large Soviet Encyclopedia," used merely regarding the utterly non-controversial point that rabid animals are dangerous.

Okay; sorry I called the descriptions "lurid," although the objection is probably gratuitous. My point is/was merely that nearly all of the many, many attacks detailed by Graves are, with few exceptions, unsupported by ANY citations whatsoever. So we are left to rely almost entirely upon Graves' personal authority, which is minimal. To me, this suggests an unreliable source (among several upon which this article needlessly relies). Graves' unique book, whatever its merits, is clearly not a piece of scientific writing and it is objectively impossible to evaluate as history. Moreover, its view & theme can be described as an outlier among the relevant literature. 35.8.219.96 (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

the majority (13?) of Graves' relevant citations are of sources related to hunting

And?

the cited novel ("wolf hybrids as pets," is also not particularly relevant).

The novel served to illustrate the impact wolf attacks have had on the Russian psyche, and isn't even included in the wiki article's re-write, so I don't see why it's an issue for you. The wolfdog article is from Smithsonian (magazine), and serves to illustrate the aggression of wolf-dog hybrids, which is in fact relevant.

yes, sadly, the Russian press is often unreliable

So is the US press. And the French press. And the Australian press. And the... okay, you get what I mean. I'm sorry, it just doesn't work that way. If you have an objection to a specific newspaper story, find an official refutation or retraction. You can't just say "we can't cite this one BBC article because the British are neo-colonial imperialists!" In fact, this is the second time an anonymous IP user has complained about a non-Anglophone news source on account of its country of origin. Last time it was an Indian source, and the excuse was "their culture doesn't fully embrace Western science", or something to that effect...

In closing, I'll leave these scans here, as I feel it will save a lot of time and hassle:

::p.87
:: pp.88-89
:: pp.90-91
:: pp.92-93
:: pp. 94-95
:: pp. 96-97
:: pp. 98-99
:: pp. 100-101
:: pp. 102-103
:: refs
:: refs
:: refs

Mariomassone (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Major distinctions CAN be drawn between large U.S. journalism outlets and those of Russia and of the so-called developing world, but that's very much a side issue, as are number of other social, cultural &etc. matters that indirectly bear on the relative state of wildlife biology in various parts of the world.

But on a slightly more central question: citing a hunting publication when writing on wolves is like citing a Vatican publication when writing on atheism; it won't get you very far.

The very limited source material cited by Graves suggests only his intellectual framework.

More to the point: As for most (nearly all?) of the wolf attacks Graves describes, one can only guess at how he arrived at his material. Merely that a book is actually published certainly doesn't make it reliable source.

I've suggested a reasonable basis for evaluating Graves' work. At minimum one can say it obviously flunks the standards for a Misplaced Pages article. That is to say, were the book chapter "attacks on humans" published as a Misplaced Pages article, the vast bulk of it would be unacceptable for its lack of sourcing. Interestingly, Graves gave a 2011 speech to "The Property Rights Foundation of America," a small group whose Web site offers an extensive warning about the dangers to U.S. sovereignty of the United Nations. In this speech, Graves explicitly contradicted much basic research relied upon by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. F&WS frankly, represents the gold standard in wildlife biology.

Graves fits the definition a fringe theorist.

The article in its current state DOES cite a number of reliable sources, which are adequate to fleshing out the topic. 35.8.218.59 (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back @East Lansing...Graham1973 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Major distinctions CAN be drawn between large U.S. journalism outlets and those of Russia and of the so-called developing world, but that's very much a side issue, as are number of other social, cultural &etc. matters that indirectly bear on the relative state of wildlife biology in various parts of the world.

Sorry, but we don't operate via such sweeping generalizations or anglo-centric bias. Frankly, there are places where your dismissal of sources based on their nation of origin border on the biggoted, as if you don't trust the primitive people of those countries to apply a standard with even basic empirical merit.

Anyway, having read the relevant chapter now (thanks for Mario for making it available), I really do not see your interpretation of the tone of the chapter born out at all. Point in fact, there is a very heavy emphasis throughout those pages upon rabies or the wolf perceiving a threat to explain the majority of the specific cited attacks, with attacks that are suggested to be predatory relatively few by comparison. You do believe that a wolf with rabies is capable of attacking a person, correct? Because after half a dozen efforts to get you to clarify your perspectives, we've still yet to see you elucidate on whether you think wolfs ever attack people, under any circumstances.

Getting back to the more central issue; even if Grave's accounts had smelled fishy, in terms of policy, I don't know that I could have supported removing it; it's still a valid secondary source. You feel you know better than he does, but that is not Misplaced Pages works. Nor do you get to toss out a valid source because you suspect his process is flawed; the truth is, you know very little, all told, about how he gathered or evaluated his information and in any event, it's not really relevant here; if we could throw out any source simply because we didn't think very much of it, every content dispute would devolve into a quagmire. Your analogy comparing the relevant chapter to a Misplaced Pages article isn't really useful or relevant; the fact of the matter is that it is not an article and the standards for verification within an article are not at all the same thing as the criteria for valid secondary sources. Snow (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, regarding Graves' comments about F&W, they are not relevant to the topic at hand, and wikipedia does not practice guilt by association. A case in point involves Konrad Lorenz, who was a former Nazi sympathizer, but whose works on ethology are still widely cited today. Mariomassone (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether Graves is right, wrong, accurate or inaccurate. It's that he is a fringe theorist with no relevant credentials other than having a book printed (apparently, he sells copies from his home address). Graves' comments on F&W were made entirely in the context of a talk on the contents of his book. In essence, he pointed out (accurately & somewhat obviously) that his book contradicts mainstream views of his topic.

Moreover, his sources are largely unavailable for objective evaluation.

So Graves clearly represents fringe theory. Misplaced Pages has a set of guidelines WP:FRINGE WP:REDFLAG that are somewhat relevant to how such material might best be presented.

As for newspapers: You've got the New York Times the People's Daily, the National Enquirer Pravda; In India, there were 35,595 newspapers published as of 1993, including 3,805 dailies. At least one of them recently picked up an article from The Onion thinking it was real. This in a country where, as of '93, only 53% of the population could read. So yeah, like you say, it's all good & let's not be ethnocentric about stuff. Main thing is, whether it's been published, somewhere.

35.8.218.59 (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's that he is a fringe theorist with no relevant credentials other than having a book printed (apparently, he sells copies from his home address).

His credentials include his professional fluency in Russian, and the fact that most of the relevant chapter is derived from several sources from people with credentials relevant to wolf behaviour. Yes, I think hunters and game managers wouldn't have the jobs they have if they didn't have at least a basic knowledge on carnivorous mammals. Also, many of the cited attacks also come from an appendix in the book incorporating a text from an actual Russian wildlife biologist confirming most of the older cases. We're not talking about wolf-caused effects on ungulate population dynamics here, or the spread of pathogens, which are more in line with F&W's jurisdiction.

he pointed out (accurately & somewhat obviously) that his book contradicts mainstream views of his topic.

What, that wolves don't attack people? That's been proven to be false, and thankfully even North American wolf biologists are finally catching on to that.

Moreover, his sources are largely unavailable for objective evaluation.

Maybe not to an English-speaking monoglot. If you have any Russian contacts, please feel free to contact them. In the meantime, I'll happily go through my French and Italian sources which would otherwise not see the light of day here.

So Graves clearly represents fringe theory.

The idea that wolves being dangerous is a mere fringe theory (in North America at least) died alongside the man in Saskatchewan in 2005.

In India, there were 35,595 newspapers published as of 1993, including 3,805 dailies.

That's hardly surprising, considering India is home to a myriad of different ethnicities, cultures and religions, all of which speak different languages and some of which once had their own states.

At least one of them recently picked up an article from The Onion thinking it was real.

And which one would that be? Condemning all the Indian press on account of that one would be like concluding that Fox News discredits all other US news outlets, for now and forevermore.

This in a country where, as of '93, only 53% of the population could read.

And as of 2011, 74% can read. So? Mariomassone (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, let's not validate his most irrelevant claims with debates about their veracity and give him an excuse to take us farther down the rabbit hole and further away from anything to do with policy. Most of what he's said in his most recent post has absolutely no policy relevance. We do not, for example discriminate against sources solely by nationality under any circumstance whatsoever. That's in direct conflict with community consensus in so many ways and to such a huge degree that I don't even know where to start. He doesn't seem to understand that there are literally millions of Misplaced Pages articles that make regular, liberal, and completely uncontentious use of sources from the press and published works of the countries he is blanketly denigrating. We judge sources on other, highly specific and less generally biased criteria. In any event, Graves is a published secondary source that is not in any way (that I've thus far seen) invalid, his most recent cries of WP:Fringe not withstanding. But since he is at least trying to make himself familiar with policy (albeit by focusing on guidelines that he thinks will further the notion he has in mind while entering the research), I will direct him to this particular piece of key policy and hope that the wording does a better job of explaining this issue to him than my own words have:

First, from WP:NPOV (a pillar policy): As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process.

And, from WP:Identifying reliable sources: Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are good sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Mind you, I don't find Graves biased; even if I do wonder about some of the numbers presented, I know of no particular source directly contradicting them and in any event, his work is cited not for those figures but for the specific attacks, none of which seem to sell the point of wolf aggression in the way the IP keeps suggesting it does. A huge percentage of the attacks detailed are either confirmed or suspected rabies attacks, and given the range of wilderness that his writing covers and the numbers of both people and animals involved, this really seems to me to lend credence to the notion of the wolf attack as aberrant behaviour. Perhaps that's a simple compromise we could offer that he might appreciate; making sure that each and every entry on that list that was suspected to have rabies involved is appropriately marked. I don't know that anything will get him off his one-track approach though; all he seems interested in is removing content; I've made the effort to explain that in cases of contentious issues with widely different (but well documented) perspectives, we prefer to add content to present those differences of opinions amongst experts ad nauseum, but each has failed. I came here only for the RFC initially, but at this point I'm ready do a little light re-writing myself, in the form of an independent section which can then be easily added to your re-write which details the historical and academic history of the debate and how wildly it has fluctuated. Having framed the debate and contextualized the data and reports for the reader, I will thereafter feel completely justified in completely ignoring his further calls for removal of sourced content and simply revert any change he makes that is blatantly in conflict with policy.

Post-edit: I realized I had neglected to address one specific argument forwarded by the current resident IP -- the implication of WP:Fringe. IP, you've said:

"It's he is a fringe theorist with no relevant credentials other than having a book printed (apparently, he sells copies from his home address). Graves' comments on F&W were made entirely in the context of a talk on the contents of his book. In essence, he pointed out (accurately & somewhat obviously) that his book contradicts mainstream views of his topic. Moreover, his sources are largely unavailable for objective evaluation. So Graves clearly represents fringe theory. Misplaced Pages has a set of guidelines WP:FRINGE WP:REDFLAG that are somewhat relevant to how such material might best be presented."

Right you are, we do, and here's how they apply to demonstrate that Graves does not qualify as fringe. First off, as you can see via a search of the ISBN, Graves' findings have been presented at least twice as articles under the same title as the book (which they are presumably distillations thereof) -- one of those publications is for the Journal of Wildlife Management, which I'd hardly classify as fringe. Understand that, for our purposes here (and I believe in general) an unconventional interpretation does not in itself represent psuedo-science. In any event, as our reference section and any kind of familiarity with the subject clearly demonstrate, the notion of wolves as aggressive even to humans under certain circumstances is hardly unique to Graves or uncommon to the research in this area. I don't have the title/copyright page(s) handy and will presume upon Mario to provide them if/when he has time, but the ISBN registries suggest the publisher is Detselig_Enterprises, which general search engines and Open Library demonstrate to be publishers of trade, general interest, and (largely) academic texts on a significant variety of subjects. The fact (which I'd be curious to know the source of?) that he sells them out of his house, be it true or not, has absolutely no relevance here; an author profiting from his work does not disqualify that work as a reliable source. I'd also be curious to have a link to the interview you've referenced, as I doubt anything he's said would truly mark his views as fringe (why would he say that?), but probably just rather conflicting with that of specific other researchers. But I'll keep an open mind until you supply the reference. The only remaining provision of WP:REDFLAG that could possibly apply is that the sources be, as you say:

Moreover, his sources are largely unavailable for objective evaluation.

First, just for clarity, you've mis-characterized how the policy operates here a bit; availability is not a criteria that can be used to discard even the valued secondary sources that we directly cite, and certainly no higher level of access is required the sources they themselves use. The part of the policy you perhaps meant to invoke concerns sources that are "Supported purely by primary or self-published sources." Please note the purely; the cited source is only required to have multiple secondary sources in order to meet this criteria, a bar Graves' work passes by a mile. Finally, though it is superfluous, it is worth noting that Library Thing alone shows nearly 2.5 million hits for the ISBN, showing considerable interest in the book, though I want to make it clear that numbers are never necessary to establish that a source is not fringe: they just happen to be consistent with the rest of the evidence in this case. In any event, there's not a single case in all of the citations attributed to Graves' text that pertains in the least to a controversial claim -- indeed, most of the citations regard the details of particular attacks, a fact you are clearly aware of as you landed on examining Graves' by way of your larger effort to remove content on that list; clearly there can be no fringe theory if there is zero theorizing taking place to begin with, but rather the statement of non-analytical details. Those details can only be said to collectively be relevant to one claim - that wolf attacks occur, and much as you seem to view that claim as fictitious, it is clearly the judgment of every other editor who has spoken on this issue that this is in no way regarded as a fringe narrative by our sources collectively. Sorry, but personally I see no validity to your argument that this author is fringe, having looked into the matter. Just as, having read the chapter that you decried as lurid, I only found a fairly detached compilation of brief accounts and statistics. I understand that you really don't care for the man's findings, and even less for the entries on that list you'd like to demolish bit by bit, since you can't get it removed by principle, but the fact of the matter is that I believe you have to let go of this one, because Graves as a source has now been looked at from every angle I can think of, and seems above-board. Snow (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Poll: Does Graves' Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages meet the criteria of a reliable source?

Affirmative Argument:The question of the validity of a major contributing source for a significant chunk of content has been called into question by an editor; I believe his assertions are mostly untrue or not of policy relevance, and have detailed my reasons in the thread immediately above; for now, since there are just a few of us, I'll do this informally and allow my statements therein to represent my view. However, I invite 76.250.61.95/35.8.218.59/Eastlans to re-summarize his view that the source represents fringe research bellow, if he so desires. Snow (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Opposing Argument: ((Eastlans))

Yes

• Yes (As nominator). Snow (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. Mariomassone (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. Chrisrus (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No

Comments

• I do, however, think that we might benefit from making sure any reference from Graves, or any other source where the detail is available, clearly acknowledges when rabies was known or suspected to have been involved in specific attacks. Snow (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• The crux of Graves' more academic sources stem from a book entitled The Wolf by Mikhail Pavlov, a Russian zoologist whose book was widely censored during the communist era. A chapter of the book concerning wolf attacks is included as an appendix in Graves' work (separate from Graves' own take, which I've previously scanned). I think the article could use a different citation system, which would differentiate between Pavlov's and Grave's writings. Mariomassone (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Mariomo said here, on Oct. 7 that "verification of historical events lies squarely within the competence of historians, not biologists." Certainly Graves is not a historian, nor a biologist, and I agree with M's earlier assertion.

Thought it was Mr. Snow but was wrong-- anyway, a third person also defending current article's problematic source list, said that mainstream science is "suppressing information" and "the people need to know," (about folk accounts of wolf attacks) via this Misplaced Pages article. This is Graves' stated position.

Thus, Graves seems to be the ideal vehicle for this folk "information." Perhaps he's the main vehicle. His sources are mainly not subject to objective evaluation. His point of view is counter to the mainstream ---thus by definition, he espouses a fringe theory, as explained in various Misplaced Pages material on sources. The article ought to make this distinction.

There are a number of very relevant sources quoted in this article that easily meet accepted definition of reliable sources. Several, including Graves, either are unreliable or should be treated as fringe material.76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"His point of view is counter to the mainstream and is thus by definition, a fringe theory."

No, I fear you don't fully understand the general-use definition of the term and you definitely don't understand it as it applies to Misplaced Pages policy. "Counter to the predominant trend in research" is not in any way, shape, or form equivalent to fringe theory/psuedoscience. Point in fact, progress in research depends on the rigorous testing of alternative theories. In any event, A) There is not one claim made by Graves (at least that is presented anywhere in our article), which runs contrary a views held by the majority of our sources that speak to those same issues and B) for the last time, It wouldn't matter anyway. because Graves' doesn't have to be neutral -- no source has to be perfectly neutral or consistent with what you personally regard as the consensus (and by the way, your perspectives have time and time again been shown to be farther from median than those of anyone else involved here, editor or source). All it has to do is meet our conditions for a reliable source. Which it does. I've addressed how it does with regard to two pillar policies, (WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutrality) and a slew of guideline pages. You need to provide a valid policy reason for the removal of a source and the content it supports, not just claims along the lines of "Well it's clearly lies." So far, WP:Fringe is the only policy page you've invoked. I've responded above showing that this policy is simply one more that supports the source in question as consistent with policy. If you have any other policies you feel apply, please detail your reasoning. Snow (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying "remove" Graves.

Nor am I saying that one ought to lump "fringe theory" into "pseudoscience" as you suggest. This itself, would be misunderstanding of "fringe theory" and its proper treatment.

Those theorists who contradict mainstream, in this case federal wildlife baseline, are fringe theorists. Graves, like Galileo, does this. He may be right or wrong. But it is clear.

This article is about animal behavior. Generally, this is understood as a branch of science. It may be argued that it is also

a matter of history, folklore, or perhaps other disciplnes. Graves is neither a scientist, historian nor folklorist.

Peer reviewed material should receive greater weight than other sources, when dealing in science and history. Probably also in folklore. I don't know Graves' preferred category, but he is not peer reviewed, nor has he credentials as author.

However, there ARE some peer reviewed sources cited in current article. There are other sources, including Graves. Weighting ought to reflect basic reliability of various sources, is my view.

"List" by definition is unweighted by citations, probably makes this impossible. Thus I think list is unsupportable.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going bullet-point from now on, because I am tired of explaining the same points over and over at length.

• If you are not looking to remove Graves' citations, why are we debating his value as a reliable source?
• We've already established that Graves' does not meet the criteria for a fringe source according to our policies, which are the only arguments of relevance here. The fact that you find his views to be not of the mainstream is irrelevant. Also, you are the only one here who believes this to be the case; the rest of us all seem to agree that he basically has the exact same perspective as the rest of our sources on the subject; wolves are typically evasive of humans, but in situations involving rabies, habituation, or extremely strained resources and territory, they may attack humans. What in that is non-mainstream? Anyway, any theories that he may or may not have on wolf aggression are not listed here in the article in any event, so, once again, the argument is irrelevant.
• This article is not strictly about animal behaviour examined only by the lens of specific scientific fields. In fact, we are urged by policy to present the subject through as many different perspectives as our sources will reasonably allow and to avoid a tone that overly technical. Sources do not have to be peer-reviewed, nor do they all have to arise from the same level of empirical testing. But for the record, Graves' work has been peer-reviewed in the Journal of Wildlife Management, as I noted above. As for his credentials as an author, we don't need to sell you on his education, methods, or acclaim; he meets the only criteria that are relevant for judging him as an acceptable source.
• Graves is given no more weight than any other source on that list or in the article in general. He is listed multiple times because he happens to be the source for those particular attacks, and it is an inclusive list (in fact the only thing that could create undue weight on it is if we excluded entries for any reason than that the sources was invalid). If another author came along citing a larger number of attacks (and was deemed a reliable source) we'd add those as well, but it wouldn't mean we were giving more weight to that new author's views than to Graves. In fact, as I've already pointed out several times, none of the citations of Graves even forward a theory or claim that is the least bit in conflict with any other source, which is what we are talking about on Misplaced Pages when we assess due/undue weight. Almost all of the citations are for specific attacks and only five are cited in the sections discussing the general nature and context of attacks, and all of these are tame, non-controversial claims. He is cited nowhere in the article in a way connected with the advancement of a specific theory, so even if he was fringe (he's not), it really wouldn't be relevant. And because he has no theory to be given any weight, due and undue weight are not relevant either. He's here primarily as a citation entries for that list -- if other of our sources (peer-review or not) speak to specific attacks, as many do, we add them to that list. But if they don't and concentrate on other information concerning wolf attacks, it means nothing with regard to whether Graves should be listed. Different sections, different sources, different contributions. All hopefully informing on the same subject but giving different types of information that may be of use to our various readers.

I'm not sure what more can be said to you to explain this. Please, for the umpteenth time, if you have an image/understanding of the wolf as a non-dangerous animal, try an additive process; new sources which support that view and add more balance to the the article. Stop trying to erode away the content you don't like but which is well supported by sources that are clearly very much meeting our standards of acceptance. The lot of us could have done so much more with our time spent on this article with the time we've wasted discussing this latest clear-cut case in particular -- if only you weren't dead-set on taking this list down and removing other users' contributions (which we just simply aren't going to allow if done for the reasons you have suggested). Snow (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Current title of article is clear & logical, grammatically, regarding subject, verb and object.

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 verb actually denotes. But your assertion is illogical. Animal behavior is not more than a science. Perhaps changing title (and topic) of article can address the problem.

It is NOT controversial to say merely that F&W Service represents the mainstream in wildlife biology. You assert that a non-scientist (Graves) who contradicts mainstream science, using mainly unverifiable sources, is NOT a fringe theorist. This assertion goes somewhat beyond the illogical, & seems to sink to the irrational.

Giving equal treatment to fringe theories is not a sound approach. Excluding them may be also incorrect.

Also, you DEFINITELY need to study up on concept of "peer reviewed research." Your post above reveals a basic misunderstanding of this term.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

IP, what is so fringe about the claim that rabid wolves are dangerous, and that wolves habituated to people may also pose a threat? Please answer the question. You've been asked it enough times.Mariomassone (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

What you may be looking for is Misplaced Pages article with different title: Something a bit like "Human Perceptions of Wolf Attacks on Humans in History and Politics"

But I don't know.

Questions about rabies and human habituation are best addressed by medicine and science .Current article cites a (really) peer-reviewed article that analyses more than 80 wolf attacks and includes topics you raise.

Question you avoid is whether Graves (non-scientist) is fringe theory. Text or summary of his recent speech to a "property rights" group is easily available via Google. In this, he explicitly challenges mainstream biology, based solely on unverifiable data of his book drawn from Russian sources.

How did people perceive rabies and "human habituation" and similar questions in 17 Century Europe, & etc., & how to include this? I doubt Graves or one or two other sources now included address this. We need to rely on sources that are more reliable and critical to address these problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

My question is, why rely on Graves regarding these issues, since his is so clearly a fringe theorist, and there are adequate mainstream sources? Graves' book ought to constitute a minor point in a re-organized article that can include various political views that trade in science (including Graves, Geiset & etc.).

Subject is animal (wolf); verb is attack (behavior). Topic is logically animal behavior (a science). Graves is not a scientist.

Got a different interpretation?

76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You are clearly either unwilling or unable to understand that how we evaluate sources (and the content we draw from them) on this project is a very different matter from how you personally and subjectively analyze them. I, and others, have detailed above, with an absurd amount of detail and reference to every major policy relevant to the subject, how Graves does not qualify as fringe under any WIKIPEDIA POLICY. We've explained that this is a general audience encyclopedia and that sources need not be peer review (though Graves is peer-reviewed; just what you mean by implying that he's not real peer-review is quite beyond me; he's been published in a peer-review journal -- not, for the last time, that it even matters). You are clearly dedicated to forwarding a specific narrative on this subject and wish to remove whatever you can that is not consistent with that perspective, rather than trying to provide new information from valid sources that is consistent with your own take. Even aside from ignoring each and every policy argument that is provided to educate you on how we operate here, you refuse to even provide a full argument for why you hold Graves to be fringe and further refuse to clarify just what your position is on whether the subject of this article (wolf attacks on humans) is even a real thing -- all evidence seems to suggest that you believe it to be a fiction, which makes your opinion by far the most "fringe" one here -- despite about a dozen attempts over the last month to get you to clarify your stance. Normally it wouldn't matter of course -- content decisions are made solely on the basis of policy, not an editor's particular perspective -- but since you do not accept policy arguments and argue purely from subjective basis, the rest of us might be inclined to try to explain how one reconciles personal opinions with editing decisions, but we can't even do that because you won't speak forthrightly on the matter. I for one am done engaging you, as there is clearly nothing to be gained from it. If you make any edits that are blatantly inconsistent with policy, I will revert them. If you happen to make a policy argument that has not already been addressed ad nauseum above, I'll respond, but I'm not holding my breath. Others can do as they wish and be drawn around in circular arguments with you, but, as one can probably easily see from my terse tone here, I'm losing my ability to discuss these matters with you while holding firm to WP:Civility, and so will not attempt to explain these matters to you further. I'll say only that you need to try to understand that your agenda in being here is probably not compatible with the policies of Misplaced Pages or the methods by which we operate here, and you are wasting your time if you think you are going to be able to delete well-sourced content solely on the basis that you disagree with it -- which really is your only argument, much as you'd like to disguise the fact by throwing around the term "fringe", despite the fact that you clearly do not understand this word as it applies to wikipedia policy, or arguably at all. Snow (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

One or Two Mistaken Editors

The one or two active editors on this article besides myself, may be operating at least partly, from a lack basic information: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC) (writer, me, can't remove bot signature).

That Graves (cited 30 times in this article!??) has published peer-reviewed research seems incorrect I get nothing in ProQuest and LexisNexus. Merely given his lack of science credentials, it is unlikely that your assertion would be correct.

It appears the only thing by Graves ever published is "Wolves in Russia," (by something called Detselig Enterprises Ltd. of Calgary, an obscure publisher.

Graves' book was indeed reviewed in a journal by a professor from Oklahoma (which severely questioned data). If you take this to mean "peer reviewed," then you are again mistaken, this time about the term's basic definition.

One would also be yet again quite mistaken to question Misplaced Pages's accepted practice of favoring peer-reviewed research as source material in editing science articles. And you would be even further mistaken to suggest that this article--given its clearly stated topic--is something other than a science article. Moreover, formal credentials of an author are a legitimate means of evaluating a given source - particularly in science articles.

Graves, speaking before a "fringe" property rights group, using nothing more than the contents of his book, forthrightly & explicitly challenges the basic research of the F&W Service, which strives, quite successfully, to represent and define mainstream science. How, despite this, Graves himself might be considered mainstream, and not "fringe" (in the sense defined by Misplaced Pages), is logically impossible to conceive. (Assertions to contrary obviously mistaken.)

As I've said repeatedly, this article currently cites, among its sources, peer-reviewed research that analyzes many dozens of wolf attacks on humans, and that this material should receive much greater weight than Graves. In light of this view, it's unclear why you ask, indeed with some urgency, whether I believe wolf attacks on humans are a "real thing." (Question is, again, mistaken.)

Many or perhaps all of problems with Graves can also be applied to a few of the other sources cited.

This last point is very significant with regard to creating a more credible article.

This is an entirely reasonable goal for what is currently a problematic article.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.95 (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

35.8.219.206 (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's much improved. But still very weak.

A fair amount of material here cites Linnell 2002. Consider that he prefaced it all with this quote:"...many of the reports come from times and places where modern forensic methods and standards of documentation do not exist. Neither have we checked original historical documents. Many of the accounts have been filtered through several layers of recording and interpretation before we have found them. There is therefore always a degree of undertainty around many of the cases here, expecially for the cases from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries."

Linnell considered these issues rather key to interpreting his (and similar) data, and are mentioned not at all in this article.

Linnell also describes one of Grave's central sources as controversial and biased (though he accepts much of the material, with the above provision.

35.8.219.233 (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you add a part about non-attacks on humans; wolf-human encounters which do result in attacks? You know, for balance. Chrisrus (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

See also regarding Will Graves, in Appendix 14 of 1994 "Final Environmental Impact Statement, The reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho," a letter from Professor of zoology Dmitry I. Bibikov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, member of the IUCN Wolf Specialist Group, and his colleague, Dr. Nikita Ovsyanikov, also a member of the IUCN Wolf Specialist Group:

"We should note, that there were a lot of speculations and incorrect reports on harmful role of wolf in Soviet and Russian hunting magazines and books supported by former Ministry of Agriculture, but very few true research on that subject in Russia. Reading Mr. Graves' letter we have formed an impression, that his opinion is based mainly on highly speculative hunting magazine publications and/or on popular hunting books (Pavlov's for instance).....Generally speaking, Mr. Graves' letter is based speculative (sic) and arguing information from unidentified "Russian source" and, in any case, reflects the opinion of only one side in long and highly speculative discussion of role of wolves in Russia."

Ultimately, of course, Graves' point was rejected by the panel of mainstream scientists involved in the 1994 evt impact statement (easy to find).

35.8.219.233 (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's Graves' letter in question: http://prfamerica.org/2011/GravesLetter1993.html

And here's the referenced impact statement (see page 408) : http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/EIS_1994.pdf

How fortunate then that we're not using the unreferenced letter as a source. In any case, Bibikov states "We do not touch here speculations concerned with wolf attacks on people," which is the whole point of the article, not wolf diseases or surplus killing of ungulates. Mariomassone (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You (and a few others?) may well have views, that like Galileo, are out of mainstream science. This isn't at all the question.

To suggest that Bibikov, a highly respected scientist, does not try to utterly discredit Graves, would be very disingenuous.

Bibikov's discrediting of Graves is sole reason why Bibikov's letter was included in Appendix 14 of the (very mainstream science) federal report. And it's deemed adequate reason to dismiss --and not include-- Graves' discredited letter in final document.

Graves' views (those of a non-scientist) were dismissed, two decades ago, by a panel of many academic scientists, who were employed by a US federal agency.

You suggest visiting "Property Foundation For America" to view Graves' letter, 20 years after it was written. PFA is clearly a very small and deeply fringe POLITICAL (certainly NOT a science) group. We do note their 2013 conference's keynote speaker was an ASTROLOGER, who appears to maintain his very own page here on Misplaced Pages, as Eric Francis. Stuff like this really gives Misplaced Pages a bad name.

Perhaps your actual point is completely unclear. You do mention the unreferenced letter, which FWS panel of mainstream scientists, did not deem worthy of inclusion in their statement. And you direct us to a fringe group. I cannot understand.

MY point, MERELY, is that Graves, as an information source, is demonstrably "fringe." Also that he should be treated as such, in article regarding animal behavior.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep your hat on. I directed you to the fringe group because unfortunately it was the only place I could find which included the Graves' letter mentioned by Ed Bangs. And Bibikov makes no mention whatsoever of wolf attacks on humans, which are the whole point of this article, and the only aspect of Graves' work covered here. Mariomassone (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Appendix 14 continued

Perhaps the "Final Environmental Impact Statement, The reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho," is the most significant document regarding wolves ever published in America, and perhaps even in the history of the world: But I don't know. It could certainly make fine topic for Misplaced Pages article.

I've recently (yesterday?) brought to the attention of this talk page, that Graves, a key source in article, is deeply discredited in Appendix 14 of this document. This could be discussed, extensively, here on talk page, with an eye to evaluating Graves as a reliable source. yet this is regarded by two silent editors here, as "disruptive," or for other unclear, invalid reasons worthy of reversion. ::Really... reverting a talk page --of all things ---is a very dubious tactic indeed.

What could be the purpose of these multiple reversions?

My reverted comment, basically:

We are directed to weird and tiny fringe political group to view Graves' letter --just maybe-- because Graves holds fringe views on science that obviously resonate with political views of group in question that carries his letter.

Graves has been long ago decisively rejected by a well-respected group chosen to represent mainstream science. His sources in letter in question (so far as may be learned) are precisely the same for his book.

Bibikov raises some of same concerns I mention above: nearly complete reliance on hunting magazines and hunting writers from Soviet media. (Your response, above, was "so what?" I cannot answer, but Bibikov's scientific credentials are very clear and impressive, and he seems to utterly discount these sources.)

I gather that because Graves had a book published in Calgary, which he now sells from his house, you feel his rejection by a panel of American scientists as well as a member of Rus Academy of Scientists, is irrelevant in evaluating his reliability.

Perhaps I am mistaken, and the non-scientist Graves represents mainstream views, but I don't think case has been made.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Wolf

it contains things in the article wolf Creeper919 (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

As you might be saying above, Grey_wolf#Attacks_on_humans already exists and is pretty long already, so what is there left to merge into there from here? Grey_wolf#Attacks_on_humans is basically full, but if you would like to add more from this article into Grey_wolf#Attacks_on_humans or otherwise use this article to improve that, by all means, go ahead. But most of this article won't fit well.

I think what you really want done is to delete this article on the grounds that that Grey_wolf#Attacks_on_humans makes this article unnecessary. If so, Misplaced Pages:Deletion process can help you. Chrisrus (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• B-Class Dogs articles
• Mid-importance Dogs articles
• WikiProject Dogs articles
• B-Class Death articles
• Mid-importance Death articles