Talk:Animal attacks in Australia

Maggie swoopings a little more complicated

The section on magpie attacks are broadly correct, but I think we should include something about how the two sexes have different swooping behaviors. Generally in mating season, it will be male magpies swooping. These tend not to be particularly serious swoops , more just sound and fury, and its intended to impress females. These usually come from behind, and the males will quickly back off if the human puts up a fight (Ie, shouting and charging back at the bird or whatever). Female attacks are significantly more serious, as these aren't intended for display but to defend a nest. Consequently, these tend to come from the front and they'll go for the face. These are *dangerous* attacks and trying to confront the magpie will just aggravate her further because she believes her babies are at risk. Knowing the difference between the boys just showboating to impress the ladies and the women going full commando to protect the babies can be quite important when the attack begins! Duckmonster (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

earlier comments

Are there "many animal attacks in Australia", compared to other countries?

Also, this page seems to concentrate on exotic animals that actually kill very few people, compared to bees (or domestic dogs, even). --GenericBob (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. I mean they happened. I got kicked by a couple of kangas as a kid, no real harm. Bitten twice by redbacks as a kid. No real harm either, just a rash and a worried rush to the docs by my parents followed by the doc explaining that 99% of the time redbacks are pretty harmless, just painful. Honestly I've been hurt by non australian animals more. Kicked by a horse (That really DID hurt) as a kid, and bitten by dogs a few times, as you do. Annecdotes dont count for evidence, but offhandedly I doubt its any worse than anywhere else. Duckmonster (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The issues that arise are endless - see the autralian noticeboard where I have raised the issue that the titles of the related articles might have a probem SatuSuro 08:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

the format is based on the articles in Category:Deaths due to animal attacks in the United States but I thought the titles were too long James4750 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

length of title is no problem when the ambiguity is potentially more dangerous - I think the percieved need for economy has possibly caused more problems than you might imagine SatuSuro 16:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The cites added do not support the claim that 'there are many animal attacks in Australia'. They state that there are many animals in Australia which can potentially harm humans - but then they go on to add that "Reality is that most Aussies go through a whole life time without ever coming in to contact with one of those really nasty things" and "It's very difficult to be a victim of these animals while you are in Australia... traffic accidents in Australia kill more people every year than all these animals together." (Also, I'm not sure that either of these cites meets WP:RS.) --GenericBob (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes they do [1] says there is an average of one death per year from crocodile and shark attacks James4750 (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than using dubious sources for statistics, Australia has a very accurate government department that release such information 2007 data it is standard practise for ABS to used for population statistical figures as they are accurate, and neutral and best of all available under a CC license. Gnangarra 17:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The source would support a statement that crocodiles and sharks kill one or two people per year. (It's not a reliable source, but I'll let that pass for the moment.) But claiming 'many animal attacks' is an entirely different matter. One death a year in a population of 20-odd million is tiny, and both these sources acknowledge that actual attacks are rare, not common. Please have a look through the major WP policies/guidelines on articles - in particular WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:Notability; if this and related articles don't get some major fixing up, they're likely to end up being deleted. --GenericBob (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a huge number of publications and websites relating to animal attacks in Australia. The numbers might be small relatively speaking, but there is a high level of interest. James4750 (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There's certainly enough interest to justify covering the issue in WP. That doesn't waive the rules on sourcing, and it doesn't automatically mean that creating a separate article for every species that has been known to harm a human is a good way to do it. For something that's only well-known for its potential to harm humans (stonefish, blue-ringed octopus), that should be covered in the main article. For something that harms humans once in a blue moon, that also should be mentioned in the main article, briefly (seriously, Koala attacks in Australia??) IMHO, the only time it's appropriate to create a separate article for "XXX attacks in Australia" is when the creature is notable for other reasons and the 'attacks' are also notable in their own right. (I'd consider dingoes to be an example of this - we could write a long article about dingoes without ever touching on things like the Azaria Chamberlain case, but obviously that case merits coverage.) --GenericBob (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This article is based primarily on unreliable sources, almost to point that its intentcould be confuse with advertising holiday websites. I have tag the sources that need to be replaced with reliable sources. Gnangarra 13:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Does this count as a source? James4750 (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In short No, a music video from YouTube is not a reliable source suggest you read WP:RS Gnangarra 15:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wildlife Attacks in Australia

It should not be "Animals" it should be "Wildlife". Anyone have a problem if i moved it? ZooPro 12:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think "Wildlife" more accurately describes the content. My personal preference (if I don't have to do the substantial amount of work involved) would be to convert to "interaction between humans and Australian wildlife", or some such - I think the material would be more useful to readers in this context. For instance, shark attacks could be covered along with the debate on culling & netting vs. conservation, etc etc. --GenericBob (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Trimming lists

I trimmed the lists DRASTICALLY because this page was way too large (making my browser crash). I removed non-fatal attacks and a lot of the earlier ones. Personally, I think the article would be better if we just removed these lists altogether - most of the individual attacks are non-notable, and the lists have serious sourcing issues. Some are badly incomplete, and some rely on 'provocation'/'attack' claims that aren't necessarily supported by the sources.

Is there a good reason for keeping the lists? --GenericBob (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The lists could be removed from this summary article but kept in the main article on each animal. James4750 (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Dogs

It seems this article has skimped coverage of the most threatening species. Or is there a reason dogs are not included in this list? - Shiftchange (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)