Talk:Man-eating animal

Comments

This entire article reads like it was written by lawyers defending maneating animals in court.

Jarwulf (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It surprises me that bears are neglected. All bears except the panda have the means with which to kill people, and they are unfussy eaters.

Bears are now in the article. In passing, pandas are not bears.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Pandas are too bears (Ursidae, but not Ursinae). Among extant bear species, they to form the "out group" i.e. all others are more closely related to the each other than to the panda. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:3453:7AF8:7F0:AFDF (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Spotted-Devil.jpg

The image Image:Spotted-Devil.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Tigress-Jowlagiri.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Basic Question

I can't figure out if man-eater is supposed to refer to a species or an individual. I have a feeling the article is also confused about this.--24.85.68.231 (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The article's wording seems to claim that it is ``species`` that eat humans, rather than individual animals. Jim Corbett would say otherwise - at least in the case of jungle cats, man-eaters only become such when they've no other option. Bondjimbond (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that many species of animal have no chance to kill and eat people either because they either are non-predators (example: the horse) or because they would do so if they had the size (snapping turtle) but lack such size and would never make the man-eater list*. Except perhaps for some crocodiles and snakes, no species of large predator is an indiscriminate killer of humans. For species capable of killing and eating humans the range of likelihood is from highly likely (probably the Nile and saltwater crocodiles) to extremely unlikely (the domestic dog). But even at that, even with practically no tendency to see humans as prey, the domestic dog can be as deadly as a cat of like size. Even without any desire or opportunity for a dog to eat someone who invades its territory or attacks some human, dog, or cat for which it has affection the dog is as deadly as any man-eater. The distinction between a predatory animal that can kill people but not eat them and one that actively seeks humans as prey may be a quibble.

If it is "species", even the domestic dog qualifies for its abilities and its broad range of prey that includes animals larger than humans . If it is "individual", then the danger that a dog poses as a potential man-eater is practically nil. Pbrower2a (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Snapping turtles have snipped off and eventually eaten pieces of human flesh from living persons, but that falls short of man-eating. Such animals as seals, some sharks, and sea turtles which deliver bad bites could do much the same by accident. Pbrower2a (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

African Army Ant?

Wasn't that just in the movies? And what about "species of bony fish"? 80.123.210.172 (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Document the predatory attack if you wish inclusion, as I did with the Ayers Rock dingo. What you see in movies is hardly proof of reality.

I could suggest dogs because they (1) can kill people and have done so, and (2) as unfussy eaters, dogs would surely eat human flesh in an extreme case. Thus if a dog's owner died of natural causes and the corpse of the deceased owner were not removed and neither were the dog, one can imagine the once-loyal pet devouring the corpse once the dog could no longer expect to be fed, then such would hardly qualify as man-eating. A domestic cat, an animal that could not kill a person through a predatory attack, would do much the same. Such is scavenging and not predation.

But one would need to prove that the dog killed a person as prey and ate that person's flesh in whole or part. Such are the elements of man-eating.

I can think of animals that have the capacity to kill and eat people yet apparently don't:

Giant Pacific octopus

Giant otter

Orca

many true whales

Elephant seal

Giant bass

Snow leopard

some sea turtles

Show that these hunt and kill humans for food and you get to add them to the list of man-eaters. That also applies to dogs.

Make no mistake: the domestic dog is one of the most powerful predators, and it had better be a friend, or at least indifferent. As an enemy or enemies a large dog or dogs in a pack can be as dangerous as a big cat -- witness Diane Whipple, killed by Presa canario/mastiff mixed-breed dogs. Paul from Michigan (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Man Himself

There are many well documented cases of individuals (Geoffrey Dahmer, Ed Gein, etc.) who have killed and eaten other humans. Not to mention places in New Guinea and elsewhere where cannibalism was practiced into the 19th century and possibly into the 20th century. --Weetoddid (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wolves do eat people

Sources;

Child-lifting wolves in Hazaribagh India

Historical data on the presence of the wolf and cases of maneating in central Padania

The Danger of Wolves to Humans

Hunter hunted, Gray wolf p.69

Dogs -- under extreme circumstances

Dogs have, in view of their ability to overpower people and their unfussy appetites for meat, the capacity to kill and eat people. Examples are to be found in Nazi concentration camps, in which guards partially starved dogs before setting them loose upon helpless prisoners then killed by the dogs and at least partially eaten by the dogs. At least one Nazi concentration camp guard, Irma Grese, was shown to have set dogs against live prisoners among other crimes against humanity.

Rumors have it that Uday Hussein, son of the dictator Saddam Hussein, arranged for the secret police of Iraq to arrest a young woman who spurned his advances. The unfortunate woman was subjected to attack by half-starved dogs who killed and partially consumed her body.

Such are extreme circumstances more the culpability of humans of unusual cruelty than of dogs themselves.

Dogs ordinarily have some respect for humans, but after extreme abuse (well-fed dogs, like other predators of similar ability, power, and size are as deadly as those of similar size if provoked) even they could attack humans as food. Feral dogs who often live on the brink of starvation and have no respect for humans, easily fit the criteria that make a big cat, hyena, bear, or alligator a potential man-eater. Pbrower2a (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hippopotamus

I saw a special on National Geographic (I think) about hippopotamuses and their relation to humans in areas of Africa, and it was mentioned that recently they discovered that hippopotamuses will sometimes, though very rarely, eat an animal they kill, including humans. It even had eyewitness accounts from some scientist talking about how he watched a hippo eat his friend after it attacked their boat. I can't seem to find it via google though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.235.18 (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hippos don't humans, unlike the other animals mentioned here. They're purely territorial.--99.101.160.159 (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There is an article on this. Fephisto (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Shark Attack

why is the hammerhead not mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.160.159 (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Document a predatory attack by even one hammerhead shark upon people, as I did with the dingo of Ayers Rock, and you can at the least refer to it in the main text. This is not an article on 'potential' (for that even dogs would suffice), 'rumored', or 'reputed' man-eaters. Pbrower2a (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Piranha

Shouldn't Paranha(s) be listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.97.39.161 (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
See Piranha for information. Like sharks, their behavior is misrepresented by films. They don't hunt and are quite skittish. They only succeed in bringing down large animals when they are starving and there are a lot of them. They don't school (work together in packs) deliberately. Fish don't have that higher brain function, it's just the joint opportunity to eat that bring them together. They'd eat each other in desperation, too. The Red Queen (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Having seen the article on the piranha I am satisfied that by the criteria that allow dogs and pigs to be recognized as man-eaters due to documented incidents, I can accept that the piranha is a man-eater. I have adopted material from the Wiki article... and added an observation that a shoal of piranhas can kill an animal (a capybara -- seen in a wildlife video) similar in size to humans. Pbrower2a (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Orca in captivity

There is a documented case of an orca killing its trainer and partially eating it ( Tilikum (orca) ). Evidence suggests this was not an isolated incident and that this animal's behavior suggests specific aggression towards humans. Is this worth adding to the discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.196.3 (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

One incident, even as the result of an accident, would be enough. Just give a reliable source.Pbrower2a (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

If I understand this concept, the criteria is "an animal that deliberately hunts and/or attacks human beings as a food source." Polar Bears should be included in the subsection on Bears in this article. They, like Siberian Tigers, kill and eat anything they catch. The Red Queen (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The Siberian tiger, despite its extreme size and manifest ability, is not a known man-eater. As for the polar bear, show some documentation. Like the Siberian tiger it is a fearsome beast. It is not enough to call an animal a man-eater because of capacity alone. Documentation is necessary. Legends will not suffice.

The Siberian tiger and the polar bear live in an area in which humans are heavily armed and hunt down any predatory creature suspected of killing humans. Such is the difference between southern Siberia and the Sundarbans. Tigers and bears are both intelligent enough to know that armed humans (the undeniable top of any land food chain except for its canine collaborators in some hunts) are not to be messed with or provoked. Unarmed humans are a different matter.

Documentation is necessary for calling any species a man-eater. If we don't have documentation of fatal, predatory attacks by a predatory species, then we have a mere 'unsourced statement'. Legends and 'potential' do not count. Necessary elements are that the creature kills humans and subsequently eats the flesh of the victim. I can think of 'potential' man-eaters that are large and unfussy eaters and adept killers. But "the wolverine might be" or "maybe the giant otter" just isn't good enough for Wikipedia. Pbrower2a (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of the 'man-eating' incidents may have begun as territorial disputes. Man generally does badly in such incidents because he is comparatively weak and clumsy. But even accidental killings followed by some partial consumption constitutes man-eating.Pbrower2a (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Movies as 'evidence'

Remember -- motion pictures and fictional books cannot be used as sources for biological fact. "It happened in a movie" or "I read it in some book" is evidence of nothing except of the content of the feature film or the book. So if someone tries to use such a horror film as Them! as evidence that ants irradiated so that they can grow to giant size can kill and eat people, the example is reasonably denied. I may have no question that a giant preying mantis or tarantula similarly bloated would kill and eat a man, but insects and spiders of such size apparently do not and cannot exist. This effectively rule out ill-defined "sea serpents" of nautical lore or giant clams trapping a diver of diver lore, and even rules out the book or movie Jaws as a source that the Great White Shark is a man-eater (although the Great White Shark is a well-documented man-eater in acceptable sources for Wikipedia).

Likewise, a film showing T. Rex as a hunter of humans imposes the absurdity of an anachronism even if T.Rex is one of the most imposing of predators ever.

Prove otherwise and you have another creature to add to the list of documented man-eaters. Pbrower2a (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Fish

Orcas are not fish as far as I know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaticate (talk • contribs) 02:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Primates other than humans

Until I see a source I consider this section "original research" and will delete it.

"Most of the great apes will generally avoid getting into contact with humans, though will attack if cornered and provoked. Of special note are baboons which are omnivorous and can often show little fear of humans – there have been cases of baboons attacking children and trying to steal infants. Chimpanzees are omnivorous too but far less violent, though they can be provoked, especially in groups. Gorillas are herbivores, but can be extremely aggressive and violent if they feel they are in danger, though they can usually be calmed by submissive behaviour. However, with the exception of incidents where baboons have attacked children, none of the omnivorous primates are known to see humans as food, as they usually hunt far smaller animals."

Source it or forget it.

In any event the statement is ambiguous and even contradictory. Without doubt, other Great Apes -- chimpanzees, orangutans, baboons, and gorillas -- can kill humans, most likely in defense. So what? so could caribou which would never eat a human. The elements that make an animal a man-eater are that the animal kills humans deliberately and then eats the flesh in whole or part. "Deliberate" spares us of the scenario in which a domestic cat accidentally kills its master, runs out of cat food, and then starts to nibble on the corpse. Self-defense is not predation even if the animal defending itself uses tools of predation.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0304/feature4/online_extra2.html Chrisrus (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Man-eater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://news.aol.com/story/_a/aggressive-gator-kills-burglary-suspect/20071113224509995001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141006074142/http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/497370/20130807/canada-criminal-investigation-new-brunswick-python-african.htm to http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/497370/20130807/canada-criminal-investigation-new-brunswick-python-african.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

List of man-eaters -- not Geoffrey Dahmer

My insertion of Geoffrey Dahmer as one of the most prolific man-eaters ever was reverted.

I inserted the cannibalistic serial killer Geoffrey Dahmer as one of the most prolific man-eaters in human history. He had 17 victims, which makes him one of the most prolific man-eaters ever. His crimes are well documented and adjudicated in a court of law. There has been much news coverage. There is no controversy about his number of victims. Without an accomplice nobody can attribute any of his murders to anyone else. He is deceased, so his toll can never expand. Dahmer would tie for fifteenth in sheer number of victims.

He fits the list as one of the most dangerous animals to have ever existed. If someone thought his inclusion a joke -- it is not. People were disappearing in Milwaukee until he was caught -- and nobody knew why until he was caught. The number is discrete and serious.

It may be unsettling to see someone like him as an "animal"... but he is no less an animal as I am. Keeping him off the list might paradoxically violate the NPOV as 'species bias'. I am not returning him to the list of man-eaters unless I get approval. I try to avoid disruptive editing.Pbrower2a (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Then please to show what reputable sources say he was an animal and not a serial killer, as this article is about ANIMALS, and not serial killers. That, and this article would only run afoul of NPOV for "species bias" if editors here viewed wikilawyering and semantics games in a positive light, and bogged down this article with details on all known serial killers and human cultures with cannibalistic habits.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The Linnaean classification neatly places human beings in the kingdom Animalia. Like it or not, we are animals, at the least in our biological functions.

The point is that unlike the case with a serial killer like Ted Bundy (whose object was rape), a mass-killer like Timothy McVeigh (terrorist bombing), or a serial mass killer like Ernst Kaltenbrunner (management of the Nazi concentration camp system), Geoffrey Dahmer actually ate human flesh with apparent deliberation. Bundy, McVeigh, and Kaltenbrunner would not fit the list because they never knowingly consumed human flesh.

Remember the definition of a man-eater: an animal that has made a lethal, predatory attack on a human and done significant consumption of human flesh. This rules out an animal which has made a defensive attack that has turned lethal, as with a horse that kicks someone fatally or a creature that might bite off some human flesh but not enough to kill the victim (snapping turtle). It also rejects the situation in which a person (probably also a domestic dog or cat trapped with the cadaver of a recent loved one) finds itself having to eat human flesh just to survive. Kill and significantly consume.

Cannibalism, to be sure, is or was part of some human cultures. It's hard to make an estimate on what some tribe did. We have a number with Geoffrey Dahmer. 17 deaths, for which he got 16 convictions and no question of wrongfulness of any conviction. There's no ambiguity as there might be with Alfred Packer, whom I would not include because of controversies.

Geoffrey Dahmer is as much a man-eater as any other beast on the list. I wanted him on the list for his number of killings, some of which resulted in cannibalism. He belongs as an individual with such other entities as "Bear of...", "Lion of...", "Crocodile of...", "Wolves of...". Seventeen victims. There is no other interpretation of what he did; his case was adjudicated in a court of law. Man is the most cunning and resourceful of all killers. Pbrower2a (talk) 05:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

So then where are the reputable sources that state that Mr Dahmer is regarded as a predatory animal, and not a cannibalistic serial killer? That, and how would shifting the topic of this page from non-human animals that prey on humans to include cannibals and serial killers, not article creep? That, and how exactly does directly implying that Geoffrey Dahmer was a predatory animal not run afoul of original research and synthesis? After all, cannibalistic serial killers and man-eating animals are typically regarded as two distinct topics.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It was all over American media. Does anyone have access to the court transcript? I have no desire to add more lurid material to justify his inclusion.

We have no problems in comparing human biology and even some behavior to that of animals not ourselves.

Humans are predatory animals. This is ecological reality -- and obvious for any human not a vegetarian. We have an article on superpredators, predatory animals at the top of the food chain, and Man is in the article as as a predator often at the top of the food chain or roughly equal to another (in that case, dogs). Of course I would strike off a mass killer like Osama bin Laden, who is not known to have ever eaten human flesh. As predators, humans are shown as unselective predators with alligators, dogs, and leopards, all of which are shown as man-eating species in the text.

Human cannibalism is rare, and almost always either a desperate attempt at survival by scavenging (scavengers of human flesh are not considered man-eaters) or even a ritual consumption of those who have died of warfare or natural causes (like dining on the flesh of a heroic tribesman who died in battle to acquire some of his courage or of a tribal elder for his wisdom). Hard as such may be to understand, it probably better explains much cannibalism than does the literary or cinematic device of having some civilized people being put into a cooking pot by a primitive and savage tribe (which is unrealistic). But any human who develops a taste for human flesh and kills people and keeps their meat in the refrigerator for later consumption is in the same league as "Leopard of" and "Shark attack at". Geoffrey Dahmer fits in the list of man-eating creatures as very few people could -- and especially with so much documentation of the evidence left in his refrigerator. He was convicted of murder.

This is not about "danger to humans". An elephant is quite possibly the most dangerous non-venomous creature that a man could meet, but an elephant would never eat human flesh. "Elephants on rampage" or "stampeding cattle" could kill tens of people in one incident -- but surely the motivation is not man-eating. They too would have to be stricken if put on the list. The ultimate danger of mass death from terrorism (Osama bin Laden), bureaucratic or entrepreneurial contempt for human safety (Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire) or many mining catastrophes, or pure tyranny (Josef Stalin) does not fit this list even if they take greater tolls of human life than the crocodile "Gustave". But the culpable people and organizations are not man-eaters.

Dahmer is so far the only person who conceivably belongs on the list. We can stop with him as a human being; I suggest him only for his death toll. Disgust -- and Dahmer is disgusting -- is not a valid ground for excluding material in Wikipedia. Pbrower2a (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Again you have totally ignored my question of "what reputable source explicitly referred to Geoffrey Dahmer as a predatory animal, and not as a serial killer?" in addition to "why should we include cannibalistic serial killers in a list about animals and how to do that without running afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH?" Nowhere did I argue against including Geoffrey Dahmer on grounds of squeamishness, especially since this article is about animals that prey on humans, and not (cannibalistic) serial killers.

Or, rather, to reiterate my concerns for the sake of clarity, the article is focused on a subtopic of Zoology, i.e., "nonhuman animals that have been documented feeding and or preying on humans." And as such, how do we not run afoul of original research synthesis and topic creep by inserting mention of Geoffery Dahmer, who remains a topic of Criminal Science, and not of Zoology, into a Zoology article, especially since there does not appear to be any reliable source that described Mr Dahmer as a predatory animal and not as a cannibalistic serial killer? --Mr Fink (talk)18:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED (non-admin closure) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Man-eater → Human eater – WP:GNL Georgia guy (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I see no evidence (and none is provided) that this term is in use in the wild, except rarely to refer to cannibalism which this article explicitly does not cover. The common English term is "man-eater" and that is what should be used in the English Wikipedia. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 02:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose There appears to be no precedence in literature or sources that even use the term "human-eater" let alone favor "human-eater" over "man-eater"--Mr Fink (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • addendum: I mean, I understand the need for gender neutral language, but, it defeats the entire purpose of Wikipedia if the need for gender neutral language requires us to expunge commonly used terms in favor of politically correct neologisms that will unlikely ever see academic or scholarly use outside of Wikipedia.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

    You must be saying: if at least 90% of reliable sources prefer generic male language for certain purposes, Wikipedia should follow the sources and use generic male language per WP:COMMONNAME. Georgia guy (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Among other things, yes, as it would be highly inappropriate and WP:Original Research to, as an example, rename the gender non-neutral terms "Man-eaters of tsavo" and "Pharaoh" to "Human-Eaters of Tsavo" and "Non-Greco-Roman Ancient Egyptian Rulers" respectively.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The former of your links is a ghost link; in the latter I can't find any official information saying that Pharaoh is by definition a male term with a corresponding female term. Georgia guy (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh; I just noticed an edit you made to your comments, so the former of your links is now active. But it's a re-direct, and the article it re-directs to is about something with a proper name, and WP:GNL doesn't apply to proper names like Craftsmen Industries. Georgia guy (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose verbatim as both editors above. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Attack versus Eating

The article mixes animal attacks and man-eating. It should only discuss man-eating; animal attacks should be a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B11F:6543:5102:FA3C:4794:D79 (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Man-eater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927173051/http://www.nina.no/archive/nina/Publikasjoner/oppdragsmelding/NINA-OM731.pdf to http://www.nina.no/archive/nina/Publikasjoner/oppdragsmelding/NINA-OM731.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

First Picture

I couldn't help but notice that the first picture in the article, which depicts a sign warning individuals of lion attacks, is placed next to the section on tigers. Either the picture should be moved to the section on lions or it should be removed entirely in favor of another picture that depicts a tiger. I was going to be bold and make the edit, but I thought it would be best to say something on the talk page to get feedback. Crazymantis91 (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Annual death toll by lions?

The page cites a Daily Telegraph article saying lions kill an estimated 250 people per year, it also states 70 annual deaths in Tanzania, but I can't find any sources in the original article.

This Nature study Lion attacks on humans in Tanzania averages out to about 22 deaths per year in Tanzania. I found the study on a Sciencealert.com article (What are the World's 15 Deadliest Animals) which simply says it's difficult to find a concrete global number.

Perhaps the part about the annual deaths by lions should be changed to something more accurate? Can anyone find the Daily Telegraph's sources?

Most of this article is offtopic

The very first sentence states that Man-eater is a colloquial term for an individual animal that preys on humans as a pattern of hunting behavior. However most of the article documents random, probably isolated cases. Yes there are a few cases of pythons swallowing humans, but is it a "pattern of hunting behavior"? And it's the same with most of the species mentioned here, each species has a few documented cases where certain individual(s) attacked and possibly ate humans, as a single event, not a pattern of behavior. --Nomad (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the term as such is applied to individual animals that have overcome their natural shyness and aversion to approaching humans (either because of hunger or an initial opportunity kill) and have now adopted a pattern of predatory behaviour that includes humans. There are no vertebrate species that generally prey on humans. If we can agree on this, then the article lists species in which such a conversion has been observed. That said, with tigers it is fairly easy to establish that a community is dealing with a single animal that causes trouble, whereas this is much harder with reptiles. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:3453:7AF8:7F0:AFDF (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

"a threat that is legitimate"

English, people. It is the claim that the snake poses a real threat that is legitimate. The threat itself is not (and in any case the snake would not care either way). 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:3453:7AF8:7F0:AFDF (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

E

Maneater 116.206.15.26 (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Aeschylus and Montaigne

Your cited source is mistaken. In an essay by Montaigne discussing how tenuous life is and how there are so many ways to die, he mentions Aeschylus facetiously, by claiming that an eagle carrying a tortoise in its talons, dropped it and it fell on the head of this great Ancient Greek poet and playwright. If you read this essay I think that you will find that Aeschylus was just interjection a bit of humor. Montaigne certainly did not say that Aeschylus was eaten by a bird. 58.10.154.20 (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 30 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Man-eater is both precise and used by the sources, so the page will stay where it is at. While a gender-neutral title would be preferable in accordance with MOS:GNL, none of sufficient precision was proposed in the RM. No prejudice against a new RM if an equally precise gender-neutral term, supported by reliable sources, can be identified. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Man-eater → List of animals involved in animal attacks – The AfD for this article failed, so there is clearly some amount of people who believe this article should exist in some capacity. However, the title remains very misleading to outright false. I have tried to come up with the best possible name for it given the article's true scope, which does not imply the listed animals typically, or even commonly eat/attack people. Once moved, Man-eater should be redirected to Maneater. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Animals has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Concur - This is a much better name. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Doesn't that name change change the scope. The first paragraph limits the scope and it doesn't include all animal attacks. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria can be specified to animal attacks that are notable, as with many lists with inclusion criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Can also be List of animals involved in fatal animal attacks, but that seems to be somewhat arbitrary. There isn't an article on "fatal animal attacks". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, Man-eater is much more precise, as being killed by an animal is not the same as being eaten by an animal. Many people have been killed by animals, but not eaten by them. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Animal attacks are, by definition, attacks by animals on other living things. Therefore, if we were to enumerate every animal implicated in one of these attacks, the list would number in the trillions. To put it another way, innumerable animals have been involved in these kinds of incidents. Since we are not unique, we cannot assume that an attack involves humans. Plus not all animal attacks result in death. Deers ought to be included on this list as well. Man-eaters—as the name implies—eat people. They exclusively contain carnivores; the term "eat" is crucial here because they consume human flesh. I think I've covered all the ground. 20 upper (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Never mind the fact that WP:GENDER recommends to avoid "Man to stand for persons in general regardless of gender", "man-eater" implies that something exclusively preys on humans. This is pretty much never the case except for possibly a few outlier examples. The word has no real place in a scientific encyclopedia besides use in fantasy fiction. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is about humans being attacked and eaten by other animals, and not about humans being fatally attacked by animals.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as vague per 20 upper. "Animal attacks" could mean an animal attacking anything, so it's not immediately clear that humans are the focus here. More importantly, the name just doesn't fit the article subject. "Man-eaters" as described in the article are animals which intentionally prey upon humans for food, where as the animal attacks article describes animals that attack for any reason. Pinguinn 🐧 07:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 6 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lightoil (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Man-eater → List of human-eating animals – As the last move request failed because it was too different, I am instead proposing a move to a more similar yet correct name for the article. Per WP:GENDER, I am still suggesting the article be moved away from "man-eater" (we don't have spaceman or waiter either). While I still believe this is less accurate than it should be, I think the fact that the page needs to be moved overshadows whether I think animals should be described as such. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose No precedence in academia for the term "human-eating animals"

Mr Fink (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the evidence is that "man-eater" is regularly used in academia? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

First, where is the evidence that "human-eating animals" is regularly used in academia in preference to "man-eater"? Mr Fink (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose As the sources I found in the AFD clearly prove, "man eater" is the proper term for this. https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/what-makes-man-eater-check-teeth https://www.britannica.com/story/6-real-life-man-eating-animals https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/wildlife-biodiversity/what-is-the-exact-procedure-to-remove-a-man-eater--62059 Dream Focus 01:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Man-eating animal. Distinguish from cannibalism. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per Dream Focus. Svartner (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 17 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 08:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Man-eater → Man-eating animal – There are multiple equally primary meanings, namely cannibalism, femme fatales and Man-eating plant. Maneater is already a DAB page despite the two titles being essentially interchangeable. I propose this move given it is urgently needed and better than the alternative. The original title can then be redirected to the DAB page. While I personally oppose the slang term "man-eater" being used over "animal attack", the more scientific term for it, I think it's best not to rock the boat given the previous failed proposals and have something people should be able to agree on. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support in principle, but I'd suggest renaming this page to Man-eater (animal) and moving the disambiguation page from Maneater to here (Man-eater). "Man-eater" referring to an animal is common enough, hence I think disambiguation in parentheses is better than "Man-eating animal". The single word spelling "maneater" is pretty rare if not nonstandard, hence I'd move the DAB page here. Gawaon (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Most of the things on the DAB page are called "Maneater" without the hyphen, so I'm not so sure.

  (Animal) would not work as a disambiguation because it is unclear whether it is referring to an individual animal or species, neither of which are true, it's talking about animals that have been recorded as eating humans. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  You're right about the hyphen, so lets keep the DAB page where it is. But I fail to see which problems "animal" in parentheses has that "animal" outside of parentheses would avoid. And I'm indeed sceptical of the idead of moving this to "man-eating animal" since I suspect that expression is way rarer than the term "man-eater". For example, Collins Dictionary defines man-eater as "1. an animal, such as a tiger, that has become accustomed to eating human flesh" – which perfectly fits the article contents. Man-eating is listed too, but there's no headword for "man-eating animal", unsurprisingly. Hence I think it's preferable to keep the word "man-eater" in the title, either with disambiguation in parentheses or just with a disambiguating hatnote, as is currently the case. Gawaon (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:NATURAL. While "man-eater" may be the more common term, it is irreconcilably vague. It is more preferable to move the article to a form of natural disambiguation such as this, than use parenthetical ones.

  But if it is necessary to come to a consensus, I'm open to Man-eater (animal behavior) or Man-eater (animal term), just not solely (animal). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  I dislike "(animal term)" per WP:ISATERMFOR. The topic should be the animal(s), not the term. Man-eating animal and Man-eater (animal) seem better. I'm also not fond of the "behavior" suggestion. It seems like Man-eating (animal behavior) would be better if the topic is a behavior. Plus, there's the behavior/behaviour spelling issue, and I think the topic is primarily the animals that exhibit the behavior rather than the behavior itself. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, but how do we decide whether it should be Man-eating animal or Man-eater (animal)? Do you have a preference, BarrelProof? While I prefer the latter, I could also live with the former as long as both terms are mentioned in the lead sentence (something like: "A man-eating animal or man-eater is an individual animal or being that preys on humans"). Gawaon (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Support either Man-eating animal or Man-eater (animal). I have a slight preference for Man-eating animal, as WP:NATURAL, and it seems like a reasonable descriptive title and less sensationalistic than Man-eater (animal), but either seems OK to me. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would tend to agree that, per my other attempts above, "Man-eater" sounds sensational in an unscientific way. We do not want to be spreading misinformation that these supposed "man-eaters" exist even if we catalog the specific, rare instances an animal has developed a taste for humans and become "man-eating".

  The "man" part also runs afoul of WP:GENDER anyway since animals have not exclusively eaten men, but I see little chance of changing that in the near future. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposed. An improvement in many ways. Andrewa (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Man-eating animal or Man-eater (animal)? Could participating editors please re-state their preference to help closers with consensus? Raladic (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we effectively already have a consensus to use man-eating animal as the title. I can live with that, as I said above, as long as man-eater is also given as bold alternative term in the first sentence. Gawaon (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposed Red Slash 19:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.