Talk:Crocodile attack

Notability of listed attacks

"Since 1990, at least a dozen people have been killed by crocodiles, including University of Washington medical professor Richard Root, M.D., age 68, who had moved to Botswana to alleviate a shortage of physicians, and Russell Harris, a 37-year-old British engineer, who was snorkelling off of Picnic Beach in Australia."

Just wondering what makes these two especially notable? They are listed along with several others, but get an additional mention in the text.

Probably to lenghten the lead. Maybe they got larger coverage too, but I personally wouldn't know. Circeus 21:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the whole thing isn't a little biased. Look at this paragraph, in the article crocodile:

The larger species of crocodiles can be very dangerous to humans. The Saltwater and Nile Crocodiles are the most dangerous, killing hundreds of people each year in parts of South-East Asia and Africa.

If it is true that hundreds of people are killed each year, what makes those few listed in this article so notable? SaintCahier 22:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Because they are from developed countries. I suppose if an Egyptian doctor on tour of Yellowstone was mauled and killed by a Grizzly it would make headlines back in Egypt, while the death of a village Egyptian along the southern Nile by a croc might make the local papers. It's notable only in being out of the ordinary.-- Stbalbach 01:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your willingness to acknowledge your racism so openly makes it all the more chilling.—This unsigned comment was added by 81.155.82.17 (talk • contribs) .

LOL, whatever, anon. Sign in and we'll have a discussion and clear up any misunderstandings you may have. -- Stbalbach 16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A Google News Search has at least four attacks in just the last month in the first ten results. And I think Australia has had more than a dozen people killed over the last decade. The statistic cited is pretty strange. Amygdala 06:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The whole article is flawed. Oh dear Wikipedia.

The notion of attacks on developed countries was not exact. Some of the attacks metioned happened in Third World countries. Also, crocodile attacks will make headlines anywhere those animals are not common, not only on developed countries. SaintCahier 04:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In Hawaii, more then 20 people die from crocodile attacks each year, in Australia there are many more attacks per year, and in a decade?

Umm, last I knew, there weren't any crocodiles in Hawaii. Just as there are no lions, tigers or bears (Oh, my). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B122:CA49:9CA4:A8D:FDDA:11AE (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Croc attacks are like shark attacks; they are massively out of the ordinary and are newsworthy because of their extreme lack of numbers. Australia gets two fatal croc attacks a year if it's unlucky. So what is going wrong in Hawaii?KhProd1 (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm from Malaysia and my comments are related to Malaysia only. it may happen differently in other places. In my country, crocodiles usually avoid places where there's many human activities, like a bustling riverside town or dockyard (with a very few exception). Most attack happen in the remote jungle area and in many cases, the victim was alone. Since there's many deadly perils related to a jungle, we will never know for certain wether the victims was killed by a crocs unless there's other witness. So this people are usually considered missing and presumed dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phadil (talk • contribs) 01:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Guinness got it wrong?

According to the 2007 Guinness World Records book, page 165, middle right of page, "Most Fatalities In A Crocodile Attack: On February 19, 1945, a Japanese Army unit was forced to 10 miles (16 km) of mangrove swamps on the Burmese (now Myanmar) island of Ramree. The swamps were home to many saltwater crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus), which can grow to 15 ft (4.5 m). By the morning, of the 10,000 soldiers that entered the swamp, only 20 had survived."

I have found nothing to confirm the GWR number. I usually only found something about 9,000 soldiers less!

D8a 22:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That entry in the Guinness book is even dumber than dumb.... How many crocodiles would you need to kill 10.000 or even 2.000 people? Exactly.. Thats just a strange story of war, like the misteryus German cat in WW2 that was rescued from a destroyed german ship, and every ship of the allys it was on sank...

You can make me beliefe that in 1945 10.000 Japanese soldiers died in swamps over a year, but thausands killed by crocodiles in the night is just plain stupid. Crocodiles don kill somebody, and then go kill 30 other people. Or did they face thausands of crocodiles ?--95.88.231.158 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Guinness thing, thats just stupid. A croc will only attack and kill for food, and it would take over 10,000 crocs to kill that many and crocs are very territorial. They would need 100,000 square miles of space, and I don't think they had that.Enc23 (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture of man's severed arm deleted

I've deleted the photo of the severed human arm, because it has no informational value. It's sensationalistic, voyeuristic, and degrading for the victim of the attack.

--91.114.196.60 (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia is hardly the place for this kind of Croccy Horror Picture Show. Though reality TV may have blunted some peoples senses and emotions, they should try and understand that others' are still intact and that there's no reason for exposing them to gruesome sensationalism. --93.82.126.253 (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I discussed this previously on my talk page. This is what I wrote then, and I stand by it:

WP:NOTCENSORED contains no statements about sensationalism. And I dispute that that is what this is; the informational value is to include an illustration of the subject of the article. The warning signs are useful, but indirect, while the generic image of a saltwater crocodile is almost purely decorative. The only actual image of a crocodile attack on a page about crocodile attacks is exactly the sort of thing that belongs, even if it is graphic. That it is violent just reinforces that it is a violent subject. That ties perfectly into the intent of WP:NOTCENSORED; Wikipedia is not whitewashed needlessly.

oknazevad (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Re-removed this unnecessary image. People can imagine what a crocodile eating an arm looks like, they don't need a picture. Don't replace it again thanks 80.154.120.247 (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTCENSORED: "However, some articles may include images, text or links, which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text or link. Beyond that, 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content." It just says right there that the reasons you're giving should not count in a debate about whether or not a picture belongs on Wikipedia. Furthermore, people shouldn't have to imagine things they read about on Wikipedia when we can easily add pictures of the topic in question. The picture in question pretty clearly illustrates a crocodile attack on a human.2601:B:C580:F45:3911:B7E5:E149:C497 (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about it. On one hand (hehehehe), it's the closest thing we have to photograph of an actual attack. On the other, I worry that it conveys a sort of sensationalism or shock factor that's not really encyclopedic in tone, and that it could be considered as exploiting the misfortune of the victim for pageviews. There's even the possible concern that such a graphic picture on this page would serve to increase reader negative feelings towards a group of animals that, depending on species, are only just now recovering from massive over-hunting, and are merely doing what any large predator does. There's all the fuss about it (see above), but what does it really do for the page? Is the information content in the picture worth the extra space and bytes it takes up, not to mention the debates it creates? I'm the last person to shy away from gore, but from a cost-benefit perspective, is it really worth it? HCA (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite so. And besides: Have you got the permission of the victim of the attack for posting this photo? No? Then you should get it, before posting this picture again! If you can't, leave it.

--93.82.125.188 (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ginger Meadows

Should Ginger Meadows be on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4701:C4A0:35FD:FC50:B128:5EF0 (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

You should ginger my meadows. 177.248.25.158 (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crocodile attack. 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/20130523154715/http://people.wcsu.edu/pinout/herpetology/cacutus/ to http://people.wcsu.edu/pinout/herpetology/cacutus/#Lifestyle

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crocodile attack. 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/20060301212119/http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=12451&repository=0001_article to http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=12451&repository=0001_article

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) 18:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crocodile attack. 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/20090209170601/http://pesonabatik.com/blog/jongs-crocodile-farm/2007/06/03/ to http://pesonabatik.com/blog/jongs-crocodile-farm/2007/06/03/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419075200/http://www.pawb.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=480%3Alolong-holds-world-record-as-largest-croc-in-the-world&catid=22%3Anews&Itemid=131 to http://www.pawb.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=480:lolong-holds-world-record-as-largest-croc-in-the-world&catid=22:news&Itemid=131

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) 22:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Section deleted

The notable attacks section has been removed: quite the most disgusting and egregious application of systemic bias I have come across in this project. Kevin McE (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The section has been restored as requiring discussion, since it is longstanding content constructed by the work of many editors. Furthermore, the "systemic bias" assertion seems to overlook the fact that the list includes reports from around the world, with victims of many ethnicities. BD2412 T 20:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you really defending this as a balanced presentation, when the article states that there are hundreds of victims in Africa every year? What do you think distinguishes the vast majority of those whose deaths are recorded here from the vast majority of those killed in crocodile attacks?

And your claim in the edit note "Long-established well-sourced content should not be removed without discussion and consensus" is absolutely not WP policy and is directly contrary to WP:BE BOLD. Kevin McE (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:BE BOLD is part of WP:BRD. Requiring consensus to delete longstanding work by numerous editors is a well-established practice, whether it is policy or not. With respect to the imbalance of coverage by sources out in the world, Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. BD2412 T 22:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

"Systemic bias violates neutral point of view, which is one of Wikipedia's five pillars, so it should be fixed." Kevin McE (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I am fully aware of it being part of BRD, that is why when you reverted it, I did not object. Unlike you when I reverted changes made to "delete longstanding work by numerous editors" in the list of Covid deaths. Kevin McE (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

You are objecting, though, through this very discussion. Nor did I revert your reversion of the removals at List of deaths due to COVID-19, although there was already a pretty clear consensus in that AfD that if kept the article should be reduced to the content Catfurball identified. Certainly none of the editors favoring deletion have provided a caveat that if the article is kept, all of those sections should also be kept. As for systemic bias, you will just have to get used to disappointment. Wikipedia follows sources, and the absence of sources on whoever was ruling England in the time of the Pharaohs doesn't mean that exclude the Pharaohs to avoid bias either. BD2412 T 23:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

First, I am not objecting to you having reverted: I am discussing, per the third stage of BRD.

I never suggested that you had reverted my reversion, so what do you mean by that comment?

No, Systemic bias is not something to "get used to", it is to be challenged and removed.

In exactly what way is the death of a white person more notable (because that is the distinction being made) than that of a local person?

Why did you restore a number of instances that had no reference at all? Kevin McE (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you intend to challenge and remove the articles on the Pharaohs because of the systemic bias of other regions being unrepresented in that time period? Pare the encyclopedia down to nothing because every conceivable topic has unreported events in under-reported places? As for what was restored, you never asserted that you were deleting anything over referencing issues, but the civil thing to do in such instances is to tag things as needing citations. BD2412 T 00:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

So your action was entirely motivated by following me around the encyclopaedia so that you can revert anything I do, rather than any intention to maintain quality and ensure that claims are referenced. Good to know your motivation.

Meanwhile, you haven't apologised for your inconsistency and false (implicit) accusation, nor have you answered any of my questions, so I feel no inclination to address your silly attempts at reductio ad absurdum.

But I would like your honest opinion as to whether systemic bias is something that should be challenged and reduced as far as possible, or whether you believe that expanding content is a valuable goal no matter how skewed a presentation of the world it results in. Kevin McE (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

So not interested in issues of Systemic Bias, just in following me to revert what I do. It's good that everyone can be clear on your motivation. Kevin McE (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks. You are incorrect, in any case. I pointed out this article in the AfD apparently before you were even aware of it, and you removed a large block of well-cited text from it without discussion. BD2412 T 17:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Now you are just inviting repetition of the discussion we have already had, about BRD and you doing the same thing in the covid death list.

So instead, how have you demonstrated your commitment to tackling systemic bias? And how have you demonstrated your commitment to making sure that this article is well sourced (given that you took in upon yourself to restore many unsourced claims)? Kevin McE (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. By all means, please do find and add further information about crocodile attacks affecting populations you believe to be underrepresented on the page. If citations are not provided for items tagged as needing citations within a few weeks, those lines may be removed. BD2412 T 21:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Way to absolve yourself from any responsibility. Kevin McE (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

It's a volunteer project. I'm satisfied that the section listing attacks is geographically and demographically diverse, but if you disagree, I have indicated the proper course of action going forward. BD2412 T 01:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

If you think that that is adequately and respectfully representative of the victims, then I can only say that my opinion of the bias shown in this article is my opinion of you, and I really would never want to deal with you, or anyone who holds such an attitude, if it is possibly avoidable. Kevin McE (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to be here at all, and yet here you are, choosing to deal with me and putting great energy into making sure that I continue engaging with you. As for the section, it is adequately and respectfully representative of the sources reporting on incidents, particularly considering that the list itself mentions hundreds of additional crocodile attack victims, including those of "a crocodile which has been credited with killing hundreds of people at the Rusizi River in Burundi" and that "East Timor recorded 173 crocodile attacks on humans, 78 of them fatal", which is collectively many times as many deaths as those reported in the same section for "tourists". Again, you are welcome, encouraged even, to find and sources reporting other instances that better reflect your expressed view. BD2412 T 21:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)