Talk:Tsavo Man-Eaters

message: Most records state around 140, but they should be viewed with suspicion. There was a lot of boasting and exaggeration in those days. Patterson had every reason to exaggerate the totals. If the lions were killing for food alone then these numbers are probably four times the real total.
-Ken Keisel
Following the first external link, I found a figure of a mere 28. However, the second one put it at 128. Most web search results gave figures between 130 and 140, so the latter seems to be correct. Does anyone know better? --Anshelm '77 00:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The isotope test merely confirms the number of humans they killed AND ate.  As the article states, they cannot test for the number of humans they killed but did not eat.  While Col. Patterson may have exaggerated (we may even say probably exaggerated) the total number of workers killed, his stated upper total of all people killed, about 140, cannot be definitely excluded. 184.145.137.130 (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmed number of kills? 

message: Relax, lions aren't going anywhere, Field says
September 12, 2007
BY ANDREW HERRMANN Staff Reporter / aherrmann@suntimes.com
Field Museum officials Tuesday denied overseas news reports that Kenya is seeking the return of the Chicago institution's famed "Maneaters of Tsavo" -- a pair of now-preserved lions that killed about 140 railroad workers in Africa in the 1890s.
Citing separate sources, the BBC and the AFP news agency said the National Museums of Kenya want the stuffed creatures back.
The Field has owned the lions for more than 70 years.
Efforts to reach Kenya officials Tuesday were unsuccessful. But the BBC quoted National Museums of Kenya spokeswoman Connie Maina vowing to "use international protocols to repatriate them.
Also, Kenya Tourism Board spokeswoman Rose Kwena told the Agence France-Presse in Nairobi: "We will follow the right channels to get the remains of our maneaters back to us. They are part of our heritage and history and it is good to have them back.
The lions were shot and killed in 1898 by the Kenya railroad project's chief engineer, Lt. Col. John Henry Patterson. He sold the lion skins and skulls to the Field for $5,000 in 1924.
Following the reports, Field spokesman Greg Borzo said Field officials phoned Idle Omar Farah, director general of the state-owned National Museums of Kenya, and "he tells us it's not accurate and he ought to know .. . this is not their position.
Last year, Kenya museum officials reportedly met with Sen. Barack Obama about repatriation of hundreds of Kenyan artifacts in the United States. At the time, Kenya museum official Kibunja Mzalendo said the Tsavo lions were high on the government's list but said the Field had made "a legitimate deal, certainly" with the hunter in 1924.http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/552998,CST-NWS-lion12.article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Andrew Miller (talk • contribs) 22:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Repatriation   

message: I had a couple of questions if anyone minded answereing...
1) What kind of lions were they?
2) If they were males, why were they maneless?
1.They were african lions
1. African lions
2. Maneless males are a common genetic fault in the lions of the Tsavo. And much like the tuskless Asian elephant it's a condition associated with higher aggression levels as both manes and tusks are sexual indicators and provide suitability for breeding signs to the females. Males afflicted with this condition wouldn't be able to pass on this trait if they weren't more aggressive than normal. (Passive males with no manes or tusks just don't breed.)
They were not shaved. BigDon (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species 

message: Undid "causes" modifications by 201.1.66.112 of 04 March 2008, as this has been previously refined and corrected. See the history of edits on this article in December, 2007 and in particular Christobol2004's edits of February 8, 2008.  The restored information is excerpted from a formal study, and well-cited. - Thaimoss (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Causes of "maneating" behavior 

message: I've removed this black-and-white photo of an anonymous, half-eaten corpse, as I don't believe it to be usefully illustrative. Although "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links where they are relevant to the content", I don't see how this adds anything to the understanding of the fact that "man-eating" lions violently killed a few dozen workers, beyond shock value. Other comments would be welcome. --McGeddon (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic image 

message: I have removed this section due to verifiability and neutrality concerns:
 Skomorokh  15:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alternative explanation" 

message: Should it not be pointed out, citing the work in reference #2, that there is actually very little reason to believe that the fatal lion attacks (however many there really were) were solely or even primarily due to the pair that Patterson shot? After all, if it's well documented that fatal lion attacks occurred there before the railroad began, and that lions had been scavenging human corpses there for generations, and that lion attacks were common there long after (right through WWI), what's the significance of these two?  - StevoDog21 (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two?