The Chronicles of Narnia Wiki


3,699 Edits since joining this wiki
June 8, 2012


Hi Storyseeker1, welcome to The Chronicles of Narnia Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the File:Edmundbluesword.jpg page. Please take the time to read the Narnia Wiki Format. It is a list of guidelines for all of us to follow. I hope to see you editing again soon! Also feel free to fill out your user page so we can get to know you!

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- EdmundtheJust (Talk) 14:21, June 8, 2012


Hey since you're fairly active around here, would you mind monitoring the edits for the next week or so? I'm going on a trip and don't want anything bad to happen :D ArvanSwordwielderSigArvanSwordwielderSigTalk

  • Sure, why not. I'm on the computer everyday anyway. Just out of curiousity, how many admins are there?
    • A couple. There are two who are inactive now though who used to be admins. ~Arvan
      • Hope your trip was good. Storyseeker1 (talk) 00:05, July 17, 2012 (UTC)
      • It was awesome, thanks! ~Arvan

Pages that should be deleted/redirected

While we're at it, here is a list of pages that I think should be deleted or redirected, as there are multiple pages of the same subject, or they are just details that don't really have much to do with Narnia, or are too small to have their own page.


Jewel the Unicorn - There's already a page called Jewel, but Jewel the Unicorn has the most info.
Tirian - King Tirian. Tirian has the most info.
Diomedus - White Minotaur (Diomedus IS the white Minotaur). Diomedus now has the most info.
Stone Table - The Stone Table. Stone Table has the most info.

There's like 3 pages for this same subject, but with different titles...

Tashbaan Tombs
Tombs of the Ancient Kings

The Tombs of the Ancient Kings. = The Tombs of the Ancient Kings has the most info.


Susan's Christmas Gifts - (Susan's Xmas gifts each have their own page, so it's pointless to give them another one).
(Category) HI - (What kind of a category is HI anyway?).
Sheep - (There's already a page about Lamb).
Tree Gods - (There's already a page about Dryads, and there's no info in Tree Gods (there's also a page called Wood God).
Narnia Wiki: Sandbox - (got no info in it)

Sherlock Holmes (nothing to do with Narnia, and only a small bit of info)
Baker Street (nothing to do with Narnia, only a small bit of info)
The Bastables (nothing to do with Narnia, and now has no info at all)

Storyseeker1 09:28, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

  • Good work!!! That is extremely helpful! Hey, for future reference, if you think a page should be deleted, you can add the {{delete}} template, and it will add the page to a category so I can quickly look up what's been nominated for deletion. ArvanSwordwielderSigArvanSwordwielderSigTalk
    • Thanks! That will make life a lot simpler. Is there a template for nominating pages to be redirected to another page? Oh, and don't forget redirecting those 3 pages of the Tombs together (I still cant understand how anyone could make 'three' pages of the same place, without first checking to see if there already was a page) (The Tombs of the Ancient Kings has the most info).

Storyseeker1 (talk) 18:19, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

    • Unfortunately no such template exists, sorry. I will work on the Tombs pages next. ~Arvan

hello, this and I Del934 a new party that makes your team Wiki Narnians and I ask a question, is that there are several chronicle of narnia the wiki in different language?

PS: I do not know very good English and I speak French very well and I also voulia sdire than me and a friend we have created a Wiki Narnia in French and I would like you to visit a little here and the wiki the links Wiki Narnia in French

I'm afraid you're asking the wrong person. I am not an administrator here. You have to ask [Swordwielder Arvan Swordwielder]. Storyseeker1 (talk) 14:30, July 31, 2012 (UTC)


I don't mind your editing pages I just edited; it is easy for me to miss ambiguities and grammar errors that another pair of eyes can fix. I would, however, ask that you try to avoid completely undoing sections of my edits unless you think they are problematic. For example, I changed the sentence 'Mullugutherum rose to the position of "the Warden of the Marches of Underland," and had command over more than one hundred Earthmen' to 'The witch appointed him "the Warden of the Marches of Underland," and gave him command over more than one hundred Earthmen,' intentionally, to avoid giving the impression that Mullugutherum had any sense of ambition--an impossibility for a mindless slave. To be honest, it was a little annoying to me that you switched it right back without giving a reason. So I would request that you leave a message on the article's talk page before you undo something major, or leave an explaining edit summary for something smaller like this. Like I said, please fix all the grammar errors you see and add all the extra info you like, but it would help me if you could be conscious that you're undoing someone else's work on some of the bigger changes. Thanks! Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 21:56, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I actually don't know why I changed that sentence, as yours seems better. I think I just went overboard with the editing for the grammar. Incidentally, Lady Green didn't create Underland so to speak, she merely altered it a little. It was there long before she came. Storyseeker1 (talk) 22:34, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I think some work needs to be done to differentiate among Underland, the Deep Realm, Underworld, the Shallow Lands, the Deep Lands, etc. Lewis uses the terms almost interchangeably. As Rilian says, "When our swords hacked off the witch's head, that stroke ended all her magic works, and now the Deep Lands are falling to pieces." If he is right (and it seems logical), she "created" her kingdom in that her magic built the city and kept back the flood. I agree with you that "created" isn't the right word to use in the article, though, since it is ambiguous. I think "conquered" may not quite fit either, since there wasn't anyone to take it over from. What do you think? Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 23:34, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
You make some good points, but it still leaves us without a word. I suppose "take over" is sufficient enough. It's crude and basic, but adequate. "This was likely around the same time that she magically took over Underland, and named herself its Queen." Storyseeker1 (talk) 23:41, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I did leave us without a word. If we use the map on the Underland page (which ten minutes of digging around on the web seem to suggest is legitimate) to resolve the name ambiguity, I think we can safely say that the Shallow Lands were created by the witch, and that would sound a little bit more professional than "take over," as you point out.Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 23:53, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
I've been going through the SC book also, and it confirms what you say. Not that she created the whole of Underland, just the Shallow Lands. "She took over Underland, and used her magic to create the Shallow Lands, in which she built her castle and ruled from." How does that sound? Storyseeker1 (talk) 00:00, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
On second thought, how about this... "This was likely around the same time that she used her magic to name herself Queen of Underland, and created the Shallow Lands, in which she built her castle to rule over all the gnomes from."
That seems like the right wording to clarify the creation vs. conquering issue, but it's a little bit of an awkward sentence. I just made it "This was likely around the same time that she magically created the Shallow Lands and named herself Queen of Underland." I think that might be enough, since the article is about Mullugutherum, not the witch. Does that sound good, or do you think we need more information? Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 01:01, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
I think that's sufficient enough. I looked at it, and it seems fine. I just had to rearrange some words that, for some reason, had all moved together. You might want to keep an eye out for that, by the way. I've noticed that whenever I edit a page lately sometimes, some words, like in this case, "enchanted and enslaved him" all moved together after I finished the edit, making it "enchantedandenslavedhim". I'm wondering if I should mention it to the admin? Storyseeker1 (talk) 01:08, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
Looks great! Yeah, Arvan might like to know, although he may not be able to do anything about it. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 01:45, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know what's wrong; I haven't experienced that issue. It may be an overall Wikia bug or just a problem on your computer. ArvanSwordwielderSigArvanSwordwielderSigTalk
Definitely not my computer, as Lasaraleen Tarkheena was doing some editing on the Mullugutherum page, and I noticed the same problem arise. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to keep our eyes open. Storyseeker1 (talk) 13:15, September 3, 2012 (UTC)


I don't want to have an edit war, and sorry to revert your edit without comment - I was writing one, but it uploaded straight away.

I also understand that you think the quote template should only be used for in-universe quoting, but I tend to disagree there - in my opinion a quote can be from any part of the canon, and can include the narrator's "voice" just as easily, helpfully and unconfusingly (if that's a word!) as it can the characters' voices. The quotation marks around the entire quote and inverted commas around only the speech parts made it clear that it was quoting a passage from the book. Is there a specific policy or convention against the use of quotes from the books being used this way (I hadn't noticed one) or is it personal preference?

In this case, I think that the full quote added by Lasaraleen was a neat solution, giving the readers all the information on the topic in a much more straightforward way than trying to summarise it (as I had done in a previous version). The narrator's comment adds something to the understanding of the subject: without it readers wouldn't get that, and might not understand what Aslan meant either. In fact, it's a great case in point for including narration where it helps readers understand the meaning of the quote.

I don't want to revert your edit without your agreement, but it would be a shame to leave the article lacking the crucial part of the quote, so please let me know your thoughts. --xensyriaT 15:54, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but the Quote Template is specifically designed for people's spoken words. I know this to be fact because whenever someone uses the template, no matter how they end the sentence of whatever they put in the template, it always ends in a ", which is used to describe people's spoken words (ask any English teacher). Therefore you can't use that template for the quote you put in Emperor-beyond-the-Sea, because that quote ends in words describing Aslan's actions, not the words he speaks. If you use that, it makes the reader think that Aslan is speaking the final words of the quote, when he's not.

I've altered the quote on that page, by removing the quote template, and writing it in something similiar, as it's the only way to write it without that darn " appearing at the end.

I summarise that there are 3 ways to write the quote. The first using the template, which I'm against, the second in the way that I have currently written it, and the third by removing the actions in the quote but leaving the spoken words.

I suggest leaving the final decision to the admin.

  • 1:
"'Oh, Aslan! Can't we do something about the Deep Magic? Isn't there something you can work against it?'
'Work against the Emperor's Magic?' said Aslan, turning to her with something like a frown on his face. And nobody ever made that suggestion to him again.
―Susan and Aslan[src]
  • 2: "Oh, Aslan! Can't we do something about the Deep Magic? Isn't there something you can work against it?"
    "Work against the Emperor's Magic?" said Aslan, turning to her with something like a frown on his face. And nobody ever made that suggestion to him again.
    ― Susan and Aslan [arc]
  • 3:
"Oh, Aslan! Can't we do something about the Deep Magic? Isn't there something you can work against it?"
"Work against the Emperor's Magic?
―Susan and Aslan[src]

Storyseeker1 (talk) 17:59, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

I think there are several things that need mentioning here:
  • First, quotation marks (") are not used solely for spoken words. If you have ever written an MLA formatted essay, you have used them for direct citations of words 'spoken' only by the narrator. (To be sure, I just looked at a handout my English teacher gave me, and it agrees.) So it is not the case that "" cannot be used for narration.
  • Secondly, the books themselves are in-universe. In other words, when we assume (as we do when we write articles) that Narnia exists and everything C.S. Lewis wrote is non-fiction history of the Narnian World, the books still exist! This is necessarily true because Lewis uses both the first and second person in his narration, so both reader and author exist in-universe. Therefore, it does not go against wiki format policy to mention narration on the page.
  • Thirdly, I don't think it is actually ambiguous the way I had it written. "Narration...'quote'...narration" is an accepted and fairly standard format. Was anyone actually confused about whether the last part of the quote was narration?

So, unless someone has found Narnia wiki policy that forbids narration inside the quote template, I think the original solution is the clearest and most standard format. Whatever we decide, I think Storyseeker's option 3 is out, because as xensyria said, Aslan's response cannot be completely understood without the context given by the narration. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 20:20, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

Well, personally, every time I've ever seen an ", it has been when a person is talking in a book. I and countless other fic writers, as well as published authors, including Lewis himself, have used them for such. I don't recall it ever being used for anything else, at least not as far as I know. But I've said my piece, and, like I said, I'll leave the final decision to the admin. Storyseeker1 (talk) 01:08, September 16, 2012 (UTC)


Well, you and Lasaraleen have now been given "rollback" rights; now if you view someone's edit you should see a link that says "[rollback]" right underneath the "(undo)" button. Clicking that link will instantly delete the edit you are viewing, as well as any others made by that user since the last time someone else edited that article. In other words, if someone makes fourteen bad edits, you can remove them all with one click. Very convenient. Also very dangerous. ONLY use this for blatant vandalism! Also, please check the user's IP address or username and let me know so I can block them as necessary. Use wisely! ArvanSwordwielderSigArvanSwordwielderSigTalk

00:54, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

How do you view someone's IP address? Storyseeker1 (talk) 01:26, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

That's the number that shows up instead of a username when an anonymous user who isn't signed in edits. For instance, the last anonymous user to edit was On the activity feed it'll say "A Wikia Contributor". You can click on that and it'll send you to their page; or if you view the changes made, it'll show the IP address where the username normally is. ArvanSwordwielderSigArvanSwordwielderSigTalk
03:57, October 5, 2012 (UTC)


You are invited to take a looksee at this page to read about an upcoming event.

~EdmundtheJustsig (1)

User page notice

My sincere condolences! My father also died of cancer, I know this terrible disease unfortunately all too well and wish you and your family for the next time a lot of strength.  Harry granger   Talk |  contribs  14:30, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

My thanks for your kind words. Storyseeker1 (talk) 19:45, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. I can't imagine what you must be going through, but I am thinking about you and praying for you and your family. ~Las

Thank you, Las. Storyseeker1 (talk) 21:39, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia Wiki/chat

Hi, Storyseeker1! Would you take a look at this page (the bulleted summaries at the bottom may be the most concise way to figure it out) and let me know what you think of our conclusions? I was thinking about reworking the Wiki Policy to make it more readable and make it reflect the results of the chat, but I wanted to let you have a chance at the chat's conclusions before I put anything together to discuss as an actual change to the WikiFormat page. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 07:01, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine. ~Storyseeker

I've done a decent amount of work on the wiki policy, using current policy, our chat conclusions, and other discussions. I also think it might be good to have a section on the basics of using the wiki (accessing source mode, inserting links and pictures, etc.). You've done a lot more with pictures than I have, so I wondered if you might want to put that section together. Anyway, I'm going to put what I have on the WikiNarnia Format talk page. Let me know what you think.

On a somewhat unrelated note: I wonder if you and I should ask to be made admins. Arvan and Ed aren't on much at all, and there needs to be somebody around with the ability to block editors and delete pages. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 21:35, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

You can ask, but I'm too busy. I'm starting a temp job soon, and I'm busy with other things.    Storyseeker1 (talk) 00:53, February 21, 2013 (UTC)


Hi! Are you an admin? HunterofArtemis12~Daughter of the Hunt 20:44, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I just keep an occasional eye on the pages for any bad edits, or to add any info.  Arvan Swordweilder is the only admin I know.    Reach him here. ArvanSwordwielderSigArvanSwordwielderSigTalk

    Storyseeker1 (talk) 21:19, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

EdmundtheJust is, too, although he's on less often. User talk:EdmundtheJust

Last Check on the Policy Page

I think I am (finally) pretty much finished with the policy page. I will continue to edit for typos and lack of clarity, but I don't plan to change the meaning of the policy itself. Now, what I need is for you to ratify this and make it actually official, so that when I appeal to the policy page, I am appealing to more than just my own authority. So: any complaints about the policy as it currently stands? Speak soon (and, unlike Aslan, I do not call all times soon--let's say sometime in the next week) or forever hold your peace. Thanks! Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 06:02, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

It seems fine, but I'm not really bothered. I've got my own problems at the moment.    Storyseeker1 (talk) 13:18, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

Edit wars brewing

Hi, Storyseeker1! I've noticed recently that we tend to always be at each other's throats about minor editing decisions. Just now, I made some changes to Captain of Governor Gumpas's Guards, and you immediately undid some of them, probably without even realizing it. This has happened several times, and I'm sure I've done the same to you on other pages. So here's my proposal: when one of us wants to make a change to a page the other has recently edited (and I mean really edited, not just adjusted spacing or corrected a small typo), let's try leaving a message on the article's talk page instead, so that we ultimately leave the decision up to the person who was originally editing the article. Does that sound good to you? Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 18:45, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

I edited it because, when you did it, I noticed the page, same as I would when anyone else edited any other page. I added more info and such to make it look better, and if I altered any of your original edits, I'm sorry but I did it to correct any of your English grammar/spelling mistakes.    Storyseeker1 (talk) 22:50, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Rollback Rights

Throughout our disagreement over the Fox page, I have tried to assume good faith on your part, but you've made that a little hard by rolling back my edit after having been warned. When I first changed the heading after posting on the talk page, I didn't realize you still wanted to discuss the change. I probably should have waited for you to respond before changing it; I apologize if I seemed to be shutting down a discussion you wanted to continue.

But the solution to that problem is to raise the issue on the talk page, not to undo and roll back changes. I want to be able to continue discussing the heading on the talk page if that's what you would like, but undoing and especially rolling back the edits of a good faith user is impolite and leads to an unproductive edit war instead of a productive discussion.

I have protected the page for one week, during which time I won't edit it either, to allow us to finish the discussion on the talk page without getting into an edit war. Since it seems to be so important to you, I've left the heading as "Film Adaption" while we continue to discuss it, but in the future please use the talk page, not the undo button, to discuss issues you have with other people's edits. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 01:57, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

Interlanguage link on Aslan

Hi, Storyseeker! The link you deleted is the link for the language Bahasa Indonesia = Indonesian. It does exist. But this wiki must request the connection on the Community Central. I thought I should tell you!  Harry granger   Talk |  contribs 00:23, May 23, 2014 (UTC) 21:55, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

What has happened to your talk page? That's a real mess!  Harry granger   Talk |  contribs 00:23, May 23, 2014 (UTC) 22:23, August 5, 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Storyseeker! I have a request for you. I've noticed that you've been using the rollback button pretty frequently, and often for things that weren't overt vandalism (for instance, on the Werewolf page). Instead, please use undo (or even just edit over the top of the offending edit) whenever it is not absolutely, inescapably obvious vandalism. That way, we can encourage new editors by affirming their willingness to get involved and by offering them an explanation (through edit summaries) of what about their edit needed to be fixed. Thanks! Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 02:15, September 20, 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Storyseeker! I wanted to remind you to please use the "revert" function only for obvious vandalism. For instance, "undo" or just a replacing edit would have been more appropriate for the Jemain page. Thank you! Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 07:51, March 30, 2015 (UTC)

You are aware that SonOfMinos had written in the Jemain page that he was Tavros's "spouse"?  How is that not vandalism? Or is there some proof that Jemain was Tavros's marriage partner that I am not aware of? Storyseeker1 (talk) 11:58, March 30, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that SonOfMinos's edit was correct. (I don't know enough about the movies to say either way, but I trust your knowledge on that.) But not all incorrect edits are vandalism. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to cause damage, not an innocent mistake. If you think there is even the smallest chance that an incorrect edit was made because the user was mistaken (about the facts or about the rules) or for any reason other than an intentional attempt to damage the wiki, then undo, not revert, and leave an edit summary so that the person can learn for next time. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 23:23, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

Character box

That's bizarre. I'm headed to church now, I'll fix the rest when I get back. If you want to, you could leave a message on Merrystar's page; she's a Wikia associate who might be able to help out. (I'm not positive I spelled her username right--you might have to look around.) I could also do it in a bit. ~Las 15:50, July 19, 2015 (UTC)


Hello. I want to know why Scythley is the Prunaprismia's father? Can you explain this or can you give the link to the authoritative source for this? Thanks. --Kuzura@fandom;Talk 17:50, February 26, 2016 (UTC)

Wolf Attacks on Humans

Greetings Storyseeker,

You recently undid my edits for the wolf page, and asked me for evidence for my claim, which I am here to provide. I don't blame you for not being aware of the wolf attacks in America. You are partly right, it is rare for the American subspecies to attack people unprovoked and end in death. Yet there have been two cases when that happened.

The most recent was the Candice Berner accident in Alaska, in 2010. The attack happened near a town where Candice Berner was jogging on the road. The research and evidence shows that this wasn't a defensive attack. There were no pups, dens or kills nearby, and the wolves attacked Candice like she was a prey animal, killing her and dragging her off the road where they started eating her. After the responsible wolves were killed, DNA research confirmed that the culprits were infact wild, fullblood wolves with no hints of rabies or any other disease. They were also not starving, as there were plenty of deer and elk in the area. There were no reports of escaped wolves or wolves being fed before the accident, meaning this was a predatory attack where the wolves viewed Candice Berner as a prey animal.

The other attack happened in 2005, and is known as the Kenton Joel Carnegie Wolf Attack. This attack is also predatory, but the reason is more obvious. The attack happened at a campsite where wolves had been known to eat what campers left behind, which made them lose their fear of humans. The area already had a bit of a history of wolves attacking humans, although this was the first time someone died. They found his body, surrounded by wolf tracks and the corpse showed sign of consumption. There was no evidence of suicide or homocide, and there were signs of an attack. Bears hadn't spotted in over a month in the area, and the attack took place while they were hibernating. Even David Mech, the lead sciencetist on the field of wolves and whom is often considered to be the founder of modern wolf science, confirmed that this was a predatory attack.

As far as I know, these are the only two fatal, unprovoked attacks in recent years. In North-America, that is. In the Old World, wolves have a long history of attacking and preying on humans without being provoked.

A report from Japanese Korea in 1928 showed that wolves killed 48 people, which was more then the tiger, leopard, bear and wild boar attacks of that region combined at the time. Now let's look at some famous wolf attacks. The Wolves of Ashta were a pack of Indian wolves that , between the last quarter of 1985 to January 1986, killed 17 children in Ashta. The attacks continued untill the entire pack was culled, where the hunters and tribesmen confirmed the culprits had been Indian wolves. During the time they lived, villagers were so terrified that many refused to let their children go outside, yet the killing continued. I once heard that the Wolves of Ashta went as to far break into huts and drag their victims outside, but I have my doubts about that claim. It seems more like something a leopard would do.

In 1944–1954, the Kirov Wolf Attacks happened. These wolves weren't afraid of humans and killed around 22 children between age 3 and 17. During this period, wolves were the most common predators in Russia (They still are, infact) and were often regarded as dangerous pests. Which, by the way, they still are in Russia. While some of these attacks were comitted by rabid wolves, the vast majority were predatory attacks done by wolves that weren't afraid of humans and saw the people of that region, Kirov Oblast, as prey.

The Wolves of Hazaribagh killed 13 children aged from 4 to 10 years between February and August 1981. They had gotten the taste of human meat because they dug up corpses that were burried at a local morgue. This attracted pariah dogs, golden jackals, striped hyenas and also Indian wolves. The pack eventually started hunting live humans.

In France, historical records compiled by rural historian Jean-Marc Moriceau indicate that during the period 1362–1918, nearly 7,600 people were killed by wolves, of whom 4,600 were killed by non-rabid wolves.

In Turku, Finland, the Wolves of Turku killed 22 children that were around 5 to 6 years old in the spam of one year, 180-1801.

In Iran, 98 attacks were recorded in 1981. Records of wolf attacks in India began to be kept during the British colonial administration in the 19th century. In 1875, more people were killed by wolves than tigers, with the worst affected areas being the North West Provinces and Bihar. In the former area, 721 people were killed by wolves in 1876, while in Bihar, the majority of the 185 recorded deaths at the time occurred mostly in the Patna and Bghalpur Divisions. In the United Provinces, 624 people were killed by wolves in 1878, with 14 being killed during the same period in Bengal. In Hazaribagh, Bihar, 115 children were killed between 1910-1915, with 122 killed and 100 injured in the same area between 1980-1986. Between April 1989 to March 1995, wolves killed 92 people in southern Bihar, accounting for 23% of 390 large mammal attacks on humans in the area at that time. Research shows that wolves, out of all predatory mammals, are the second-most likely to become maneaters. In case your wondering, the first place goes to the members of the Panthera genus, which includes the lion, tiger, leopard, jaguar and snow leopard. The latter two of the five pantherines don't have a long or rich history of attacking humans, but that's a differant subject.

Here is a list of all several reported wolf attacks. Notice how the majority of the predatory attacks take place in the Old World? And also notice how the majority of these victims are either children or young women? In other words, easy prey for a large, pack-hunting apex predator. Like all predators, wolves go after the easiest meal. This means old, sick, pregnant and young animals, although they aren't above taking down healthy adults either. And children and young women are easy prey. Its not a coincedence they are the majority of the victims. The aricle also provides links to things such as official reports.

However, Maugrim and the other wolves in Narnia appear to be one of the American subspecies. And like I said, the New World wolves aren't well known to attack people unprovoked. Only two fatal attacks is nothing compared to the number of attacks comitted by their Middle-Eastern, Russian, Indian and European brethen. So I am not entirely sure wether it would be revelant.

Unless the Narnian wolves are meant to represent European or Russian wolves instead. Fun fact, Russia has had a long history of wolf attacks, and the animal isn't held in high regard there because of it. Infact, many famous wolf fairy tales originate from that region, or Europe, where wolves have also been known to attack people. Recently, Russian biologists even started using the fact that tigers are the only predator known to hunt and eat wolves as if they were prey as a reason not to shoot them, as wolves are responsible for a much higher loss of life and livestock then the tigers of that region.

Also, wolves don't just hunt in their own territory, as they have been known to trespass, which results in conflicts between packs or with other predators. And while wolves mainly target animals that are easier to hunt, this isn't always strictly true. Wolves have been observed to take down healthy adults. So while they prefer easy prey, they don't restrict themselves to it.

Wolves have also been known to take part in what sciencetists call 'surplus killing'. Surplus killing means that an animal kills without being hungry or threatened, and will kill more then it needs, without hiding it or returning later for it. The motiviation is usually either for fun, or more commenly and likely, out of an instictive trigger that causes the behavior. Think of the famous 'fox in the henhouse' example. And speaking of foxes, in Australia, over several days a single fox once killed eleven wallabies and 74 penguins, eating almost none. A leopard in Cape Province, South Africa killed 51 sheep and lambs in a single incident. Similarly, two caracals in Cape Province killed 22 sheep in one night, eating only part of the buttock of one carcass. Up to 19 spotted hyenas once killed 82 Thomson's gazelle and badly injured 27, eating just 16% of the herd they killed. This behavior seems to be the most common in predatory mammals, such as wolves, foxes, stoats, lions, hyenas, bears and dholes. I've never heard of a cold-blooded animal, such as a snake, shark or crocodile, taking part in surplus killing. The reason for this is unknown, though I could have missed a report or article that said otherwise.

I hope this clears things up and I am willing to answer any questions you might have,

Megadracosaurus (talk) 10:16, August 3, 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the info.  I'm not sure if I agree with all that, as I've been among wolves in safari parks, and once observed some in the wild, and found them to be splendid creatures. However, the info you've provided has confirmed what you originally put up, and while I consider myself a conservationist, I can't deny the evidence.  15:43, August 3, 2016 (UTC)Storyseeker1 (talk)

Your welcome. And yes. While wolves aren't in my top 10 of favorite animals, my favorite animals are leopards, hyenas and dholes, they are still great creatures. But in my opinion, admitting that predators can and will attack humans unprovoked is part of conservation. No one, for example, denies that tigers and leopards will ocassioally target humans. As a result, we know how to prevent such attacks and what to do when the predator attacks anyway. As a result, the responsible predators are often killed. Admitting the risk of an attack is the first step to preventing it, which will save lives of both animals and humans.

And lucky! While I have seen wolves in zoos before, I haven't seem then in the wild. We lack wild wolves in the Netherlands, although they are slowly migrating from Germany, as I've heard. As for for the safari park, did that happen to be a wolf park? I've never trusted those. Judging from videos I've seen and articles I've read, the majority of their 'wolves' seem to be huskies who, at most, maybe have some wolf blood in them. Kind of like Wolf Haven...Then again, Wolf Haven is a special case. In case you haven't heard of this terrible organisation, they claim that wolves are good pets and promote the idea of keeping them as such. They also sell wolves, which in reality are just abused dogs (Husky-German Shepard crossbreeds from the looks of it) that happen to look a little like wolves. They've also done 'research' and talked with 'experts' that suggests wolves are part of the feline family...If this was not the case with the park you visited, hen I am still quite jelous. Anyways, thank you for being civil and reasoneble. I've met tons of people who claimed that I was a 'wolf hater' when I presented them the information I also just gave you. The ironic thing, they asked me for evidence...But that's a differant story. Megadracosaurus (talk) 16:03, August 3, 2016 (UTC)

Longleat park - Canadian timber wolves.  

That's stupid!  While I love wolves, keeping them as pets in idiotic! They're not domesticated, and I don't believe in trying to make them as such!  I blame movies like White Fang and such. People see the film or read a story where a wolf is a pet, and suddenly everyone wants to try it!  Storyseeker1 (talk) 02:54, August 4, 2016 (UTC)

That usually happens, yes. People, especially wolfaboos, tend to sometimes think of wolves as just wild dogs and exspect them to be simply a wilder version of dogs whose trust you have to earn. And internet is also to blame. Some wolfaboo once sended me a video of a woman playing a wolf she raised in captivity, and claimed that was evidence wolves were good and harmless pets...

I've also seen people cuddeling up to hyenas, lions, tigers, bears, sharks, crocodiles, leopards, pythons and cougars on the internet. Yet no one I ever met claimed they are good pets and no one I met ever denied they'll occasionally kill humans unprovoked, unlike wolves who seem to have an army of defenders of some sort. So that proves nothing.

Foxes are also an example. People see videos of 'pet' foxes on the internet, they start feeding urban foxes and the foxes become bolder and more aggresive as a result. Stupidity at its finest if you ask me. You wouldn't believe the stories I sometimes hear from rabid wolf fans. One girl claimed she met a wild wolf pack in the woods that she just...befriended somehow and that they saved her life and stuff like that. Another said that 'the spirit of the wolf choose her and that she must protect all of wolfkind blablabla' etc. Some even compared wolf hunting to the Holocaust and 9/11, and one psycopath claimed that she'd rather see people use rugs made out of Jews rather then wolves! Then again, wolfaboos are a fandom that sometimes literally says people should wipe out other animals, like lions and hyenas, so their 'precious wolves' are spared and demonize victims of wolf attacks.

And yeah, movies and books don't just have influence on wolves either. After people saw and read Harry Potter, people suddenly became grazy about keeping owls as pets, especially snowy owls like Hedwig. And in the end, both animals and humans suffer. For example, a guy in Miami tried raising a spotted hyena in his appartment. While I can't deny that, judging from the videos I've seen, they have a strong bond, it isn't right to raise a large, wild predator in an appartment. In the end, Jake (the name of the hyena) accidently broke his owner's arm.

Sorry for the rant n_n' I tend to loose myself in topics such as this. Also, I'm not familiar with the Longleat Park. What was it like? Megadracosaurus (talk) 13:24, August 4, 2016 (UTC)

Longleat is in Bath, Britain. Finest safari park of the country. Has its own show and everything. 

I see foxes quite regularly since I live in the country, and I do feed them sometimes, but only in the winter when food's scarce for them, and they have trouble finding food elsewhere.  

I dunno about the other stories, but I have heard tales of people befriending wolves (Jungle Book not included), and there are stories of wild animals somehow saving people. It's rare and may seem unbelievable, but it does and can happen.  

Okay, this girl wasn't a Nazi was she, the one who said that about Jews?  I love animals, too, but that's taking it a step too far.  (I would have said politicans or divorce lawyers myself)

I've never heard it said like that, that people should wipe out other animals to spare wolves. Everyone I know, and myself, say that ALL animals should be spared, not such some. 

I wouldn't have thought that would be legal, owning a hyena??? I've actually been around hyenas myself, too.  I did volunteer work once in a lion park in Johannesburg, South Africa, several years ago. They had lions, tigers, hyenas and a number of other animals.  I remember there was this hyena cub called Vince. Cute little guy (hard to believe what he was going to look like when he grew up) who was raised by one of the park keepers. She had to, as he was the runt of a litter. His siblings tore his ear off, and mom abandoned him. Storyseeker1 (talk) 16:15, August 4, 2016 (UTC)

Really? I should look it up then XD And yeah, but I don't assume you try to pet and domesticate them, like some people? And I have indeed heard stories about that, but I've never heard of wild wolves, or any predator for that matter, that saved humans or instantly decided to become buddies. Something like that takes a long time. Kevin Richardson, for example, raised his own lion pride and hyena clan. Yet he is smart enough to know he isn't a lion or hyena whisperer, and he wouldn't surround himself with their wild counterparts.

It was someone on DeviantArt, who is quite known for being a fanatic when it comes to animals. In her mind, eating a cow is the same as cannibalism. And agreed. I hate people who value the life of one animal over the other. However, they seem to be common. I've met people who thought of wolf hunting as the most evil sin there is, yet defended sharkfinning and deer hunting. And people who claim only heartless people eat dogs, while eating their factory-farmed pork.

That's indeed how spotted hyena clans work. While study shows that spotted hyenas are the most intelligent and social of the Carnivore family, with only dholes and cape dogs being more tight-knit their hierarchy is competitive rather then coöperative, like canines. In a hyena clan, females are pretty much the ruling caste, with even the lowest ranking female being higher then the highes-ranking male. The clan, which can grow to have 80-90 members, is therefore always led by a female known as a matriarch. Hyena cubs start fighting as soon as they are born, they're born with their eyes open and teeth ready, in order to establish a social hierarchy among themselves. And yes, its indeed illigal to own one. Although I've heard that some people in the Middle-East sometimes catch and tame striped hyenas. Study shows that hyenas are, compared to other wild predators, surprisingly easy to train and tame. Only males though, as they are smaller and less aggresive then females by nature. By no means recommonded though. Here is a link to an episode of 'Fatal Attraction' that focused on the hyena and his owner in question.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Only spotted hyenas are this social though. Aardwolves are solitary, and striped hyenas live either alone or in a breeding pair that mates for life. Brown hyenas form small packs akin to wolves, complete with a dominant breeding pair.

I am very jelous though! I've always wanted to go to a safari park. And considering tigers (Tigers are my third favorite species of big cat.) and hyenas are some of my favorite animals...You get the idea XD Aside from lions, tigers and hyenas, what else did they have? Megadracosaurus (talk) 16:26, August 4, 2016 (UTC)

Well, I agree about the part eating dogs! I support a chariety that's trying to outlaw dog-eating in places like Vietnam and Korea etc. Trust me, what they do to the dogs out there is heartbreaking!  I know; makes me wish I could go vegetarian, but I've never been successful. I just love meat too much, though I've never eaten deer (makes me think of Bambi).  

Well, it was only a small park, but it was also one of the places in the world that breeds white lions (I was lucky, as at the time I went there, they had 2 litters of lion cubs; one gold and one white). As I recall, they had of course gold and white lions, a black jaguar, warthog, jackal, hyenas, zebras and antelope, cheetah, leopard, giraffes, African Lynx, ostriches, and one young tiger who was on loan to them.  There might have been others, but that's all I can remember atm. Storyseeker1 (talk) 23:15, August 4, 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me. When I say I'm not against eating dogs, I mean the eating of their meat itself. I do mind the way they are treated though and I'm against it, in the same way I don't support factory farming and such. However, I don't mind the eating itself. Every argument I've heard so far while one should not eat dogs can easily be countered, and when you come down to it, its all cultural reasons. People in India don't eat cow, but I guess you do. Other arguments I often hear against it are this.

"Dogs are man's best friend, not as food": Yes and no. Some cultures bred specific dog breeds purely for consumption, in the same way other's did with pigs, cows and chickens. These animals, in that culture, are no more man's best friend then a cow or chicken. And again, what type of animal you eat largely depends on culture. In India, people don't eat cows, for example.

"Dogs are to intelligent to be eaten": Intelligence is a good argument and dogs are indeed smart creatures, but here's the thing. Pigs are much more intelligent then any canine. Infact, they're one of the most intelligent animals in the world, and can be just as much of an affectionate pet as a dog. So according to people who use the intelligence argument, it would be worse to eat a pig then a dog. Most of them will deny this when informed of that and argue that dogs aren't bred as man's best friend, which brings us to the argument above.

"Dogs are better-looking then most livestock": You'd be surprised how much I hear this one. I don't think appearance should decide what animal has more right to live then another one. It doesn't come as a surprise that many people who use this argument are the same one's who despise wolf hunting, yet support sharkfinning and rattlesnake-round ups for not being 'cute and majestic'. I cannot express in words how much I hate and disdain these people.

So, when it come's down to it, the majority of arguments against eating dogs are emotional, rather then logical. Again, I don't support the ways dogs are treated and hate it just as much as I despise factory farming and such. But I don't really have a problem with eating dogs itself. And yeah, I have the same problem. I love meat too much XD That's why I usually only eat eggs and meat that aren't factory farmed. I'm not entirely sure what the English name for such products are, but we call it 'biological products' here when translated into English.

A very interesting collection! What was the park called? I'd like to look it up. And white lions huh? Interesting. Those tend to be very rare, mostly because of nature itself. Lionesses' prefer dark manes in males, and white fur isn't a good trait on the plains that are their natural habitat. However, I'm glad they aren't in the same boat as white tigers though. I still don't get why that act of animal abuse doesn't get more public attention. And black jaguars! I've never seen one of those either, although I have seen a black leopard when I was just a kid. Megadracosaurus (talk) 07:52, August 5, 2016 (UTC)

You have no idea what they do to those poor dogs!  They treat them far worse than the pigs!  And just for the record, Japanese and other cultures used to eat whale regularly, and some eat horses, but I certainly won't!  I'm sorry, but if you actually consider eating dogs is acceptable then please don't talk to me again. 

Free range eggs. 

It was only called The Lion Park as I recall.  It's been years since I went there, but it was in Johannesburg, in Lanseria. 

Storyseeker1 (talk) 13:43, August 5, 2016 (UTC)

I am also against the way they are treated, and find that unaccepteble. But I find treatment of the animals and eating them to be a differant case. I have nothing against eating pigs and chickens in general, but I am against at how they are treated in places like farm factories. However, I must admit, I'm not an expert on the subject. I haven't researched dog consumption in the same way I've researched white tiger breeding and sharkfinning. Could you tell me how they are treated then? I'd like to know such things before pulling a conclusion.

Wait a second...The Lion Park!? Does it happen to be associated with someone Kevin Richardson? If so, I've heard about it! I've seen tons of videos of him, the Park and his animals, mostly the one's about lions and hyenas, and I think I even saw Vince in one of the documantaries he made. Skip to 15 minutes and 15 seconds, and you'll see a male hyena with a missing ear named Vince, whose also mentioned having lost an ear to his sibling.

I also apologize for the late reply. I've been busy with my job and several projects for the past few weeks. Megadracosaurus (talk) 19:14, August 17, 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, it's been years since I went there, but I recognise the name of Kevin Richardson.  It wasn't called the vel-whatever lion park whern I went there, but that was over 11 years ago so anything could ahve changed.  That could very well be Vince burt the last time I saw him he was a pup, so no way I can be sure.  Storyseeker1 (talk) 01:08, August 18, 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for pointing those out; they had completely fallen off my radar. I'll comb through the list tomorrow. ~Las 04:01, September 12, 2016 (UTC)