Talk:Organisms that are dangerous to humans
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Official Status?
From the article on ostriches: "Ostriches are classified as dangerous animals in Australia, the US and the UK." Following the link I expected a legal definition. Is there such a thing, or is that line completely bogus? For that matter, if there isn't, then isn't this whole article rather subjective and unencyclopedic, aside from being uncompletable?
[edit] Wolf
I moved wolf from "animals that attack and eat humans" to "animals that attack humans in defense." There isn't any evidence of healthy wolves attacking humans in the last 150 years, according to the wolf entry on wikipedia.
[edit] Complete?
I don't think this list is complete. Most animals will attack humans if threatened, should they count? Wombats can be pretty ferocious all right, and triggerfish have these vicious razor blades. Scary.61.230.72.211 01:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Correct, it's woefully incomplete. The animals are perhaps one or two percent complete, the poisonous plants and fungi more like 0.1% to 0.01% complete. As it stands, the page is not much use. - MPF 13:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
First, we need to establish the meaning of "dangerous" in this case. Does it mean only animals that can kill humans, or anything that can potentially harm humans? Dora Nichov 02:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
'Cause if it means "harm", that's virtually everything. Even mice bite, even rabbits kick, and turkeys will buffet with wings and peck. Dora Nichov 00:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree. I don't think this list can be completed. However, it can still be added to. Maybe it would be better to have a reference to a related news story for each animal attacking a human? Meanwhile, I have added an "Incomplete List" banner. IanUK 10:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed merger
The Animals attacking humans page contains a very similar, though much less comprehensive, list of dangerous animals. I can't think of any valid reason why we need two separate articles covering the very same topic. Thoughts?--Caliga10 10:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think they should be merged, Animals that are dangerous to humans are different from animals that attack humans, attack means that the animal meant to do it, but dangerous means anything that can hurt a human, for example, a stone fish would never attack a human, but stepping on one will kill a human, it is dangerous, but doesn't attack. 58.172.36.2 06:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your point is well taken. Could we instead have a section on this page called "animals that attack humans" which replicates the content of that (currently) distinct article. The reason I proposed the merger is because both articles are very similar and it's not a good idea for people to have to read two distinct articles to get virtually the same information. Surely you agree that animals which attack humans are all inherently dangerous, right?--Caliga10 15:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't we already have such a section? The animals that EAT humans, the animals the HARM humans and the POISONOUS animals are in different sections. (Though venomous animals may also fall into the harming category). Dora Nichov 11:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
