Talk:Wolf attacks on humans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What on Earth has happened to the rest of the list? It can be seen in edit mode, but doesnt display on the main article!129.12.230.169 19:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So how many of these are actually werewolf attacks? Lisa the Sociopath 05:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Uh ... I doubt there's a source that can answer your question at present. Bearerofthecup (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What on earth... Has anyone actually read the references on this page... I think it needs to be more neutral

What on earth... Has anyone actually read the references on this page... I think it needs to be more neutral —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.224.145 (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is already neutral. Here are some quotes;

Nevertheless, with the exception of one attack on a French shepherd in 2001,[1] modern Western Europe has had very few attacks and no recent fatalities. "Lupus," a German group of wildlife biologists says it has documented 250 encounters between people and wolves in the Lusatia region and there were no problems in any of the cases.[2]

When settlers began colonizing the continent, they noticed that though the local wolves were more numerous than those in Europe, they were less aggressive.[3] In Canada, an Ontario newspaper offered a $100 reward for proof of an unprovoked wolf attack on a human. The money was left uncollected.[4] Though Theodore Roosevelt considered the large timber wolves of north-western Montana and Washington to be equal in size and strength to Northern European wolves, he noted that they were nonetheless much shyer around man.[5]

However, wild wolves are often timid around humans, and usually try to avoid contact with them, to the point of even abandoning their kills when an approaching human is detected.[6] Dark hyena (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hardcore

I swapped the old picture for a new one in order to make this article look a bit fresher, as the other is already in use at Wolf. Bearerofthecup (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] picture not relevant?

The beast of gevaudan is hardly appropriate to the article, as it's unlikely to have been a case of wolf attacks and the animal in the image is clearly not a depiction of a wolf. Don't we have a picture of a wolf or supposed wolf attack victim that could go there instead.

I'm well aware, as i'm sure the rest of you are, that there's a few agenda pushers around the wolf articles atm pushing the opinion that the old folklore evil-wolf archetype is somehow an accurate depiction of wolf behaviour. But do we really need to pander to them by using the beast of gevaudan as our only image? 86.162.139.196 (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Are these more to your satisfaction?

I'm well aware, as i'm sure the rest of you are, that there's a few agenda pushers around the wolf articles atm pushing the opinion that the old folklore evil-wolf archetype is somehow an accurate depiction of wolf behaviour.

Where is the old folklore? The article only concern's itself with historical accounts.

Dark hyena (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


Yikes, 86.162.139.196, take a muscle relaxant or something, and admit that you're an agenda pusher yourself. The only reason I made the change was to mitigate the tackiness of re-using a picture from Wolf. However:
1) The Beast of Gévaudan was a wolf.
2) Therefore, a depiction of the Beast of Gévaudan is a depiction of a wolf.
If you find the change too traumatizing, the indomitable Dark hyena has presented some excellent alternatives. I actually prefer hyena's first suggestion, NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, to the picture I added (kudos by the way, hyena).
Bearerofthecup (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll change it now, though the Gevaudan picture could still be used for it's own article.Dark hyena (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)