Talk:Tiger/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Mythical attacks on large crocodiles

OK, there have been several attempts to add in a 3rd-hand rumored account of a tiger killing a large saltwater crocodile, which I have removed. There are several reasons for this:

1) There is no scientific confirmation. Though the article is quoting a scientist, that individual is himself merely relaying a tale he was told. There are no photos, specimens, videos, or firsthand accounts to give this any more credence than a Big Fish story.

2) The details of the attack flatly contradict any aspect of the behavior of real crocodiles, and in some cases contradict physics itself:

a) No crocodile attacks prey on land with its tail. Ever. They will thrash when captured, and they will move it as an inertial aide to whipping their head around to bite, but no crocodile will use its tail as a primary weapon. Prey are attacked only via lunging forward with the head or rapidly swiping the head sideways (or combinations or sequences of these), never with the tail. The use of the tail as a prey-disabling weapon is a widespread myth about crocodilians with no basis in fact.

b) Striking it in the head will do absolutely nothing except piss it off. Their heads are massive blocks of almost solid bone, and they routinely slam into prey from all angles with their heads. Additionally, during male-male combat, head impacts occur frequently. As strong as a tiger may be, it has little chance of stunning an animal whose skull has specifically evolved to withstand massive impacts on a regular basis.

c) Flipping a massive crocodile over, especially before it can escape, would be essentially impossible. The account itself gives a weight of 1,800 lb, roughly the mass of a small car. Again, tigers are strong, but they cannot flip cars (if they did, many parks would have to seriously re-evaluate their safety protocols).

3) The account postulates an absurdly large crocodile, a truly massive male. Not impossible in size, but definitely in the top 2% or less of adults in terms of size. While such animals exist, the huge size is strongly suggestive of a Big Fish tale.

I do not suggest any deception or malice on the part of the individual reporting this, merely that he was suckered by a tall tale. And predation of tigers on crocodiles is certainly possible, though probably in of smaller individuals and in a much less dramatic way. Hell, a tiger could likely take out even a huge croc if that croc were stranded on land (caught during treks between rivers or when a river dried up). But as it stands, we have an unverified 3rd-hand account of a ludicrously large crocodile which behaves in ways no crocodile has ever been seen to and succumbs to attacks that most crocodiles tolerate with ease, and is then dispatched in a highly unusual way by a ludicrously strong tiger. I liken this to reports of 30 foot anacondas or reticulated pythons - such individuals may be possible, and may even currently exist, but the extraordinary nature of such beasts requires extraordinary proof. The same holds true here - given the extremely implausible details of this account, more proof is needed than a 3rd-hand story. HCA (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting points there and I agree that, stating this as a regular fact would make it obviously need more sources. What remains is whether we should then quote this tale, which I still think is irrelevant unless this has been covered by multiple sources. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Bravo for HCA's effort and detailed arguments!! I agree to remove this tale and reference from the article, and use a peer-reviewed scientific source to reference this claim if this exists at all. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to address this reference in detail. As stated earlier, I disagree with your position to some extent but appreciate the civil and reasoned approach. I hope to maintain this level of discourse in my response below.

My position is that Dr. Sandal is an individual with an extraordinary amount of credibility on this subject, which is the behavior of and potential interaction between bengal tigers and saltwater crocs in the Sundarban region of India and Bangladesh. As someone with such outstanding credentials and with such a unique knowledge base, I feel it is highly unlikely that he would believe or repeat an account that is implausible. In fact, I believe that his judgment in choosing to relay this account deserves the benefit of the doubt, given his unique and exceptional credentials in this field, which include years of firsthand observation.

Regarding the specifics of the account itself, I will respond to the three points above individually:

1) The account does not state that a crocodile attacked the tiger with its tail while the two were on land. Instead, it describes the two animals swimming across a waterway, with the croc in pursuit of the tiger.

2) I didn't see any claims in the account of the tiger striking the crocodile in the skull. As far as I can tell, the attack consisted of the tiger managing to turn the croc over as they both reached the edge of the waterway and then attacking the crocodile's underside after it was turned over.

3) I disagree with the proposition that it would be physically impossible for a tiger to flip a crocodile onto its back. First off, it's a bit of an exaggeration to liken an 1800 lb. croc to the weight of a small car. The smallest "standard" models tend to weigh well over 2500 lbs, and even a 3200 lb. vehicle would be considered "small." Those weights are substantially more than the 1800 lb estimation for this crocodile. The only cars in that weight class are "smart cars," and I'm not sure I would trust the notion that a tiger or other large/strong animal couldn't flip a smart car, although I doubt they would have much interest in doing so.

Having said that, I concur that it is unlikely that the croc from this account weighed 1800 lbs. It's well known that even the most experienced and credible observers tend to overestimate the size and weight of large terrestrial animals (bears, crocs, tigers, lions, elephants, constrictors, rhinos, etc.) and it seems likely that this was the case in this instance as well. The only reason I added the weight at all was that someone had previously modified the article to state that the crocodile in question was "small," perhaps because of some confusion over the source account where Sandal was prompted to relay this story to the writer by the sight of a different, small saltwater croc in the Sundarbans. The point was that the crocodile in question was not considered "small" by the observer or Sandal. However, assuming that the crocodile weighed less than 1800 lbs, this would increase the possibility of the tiger being strong enough to turn it over. Again, I'm not suggesting that this would be an easy task for the tiger, but the given the specifics of the story (the crocodile pursuing the tiger from river to riverbank and the tiger turning the tables at the edge of the river), I don't think it stretches the bounds of credulity as much as you suggest. And again, I think we should defer to Dr. Sandal to some extent as I don't believe it's fair to assume that he would believe or relay an account that is so preposterous, given his expertise on the subject.

On the subject of the ability of a tiger to subdue a crocodile in general, I think it is worth noting that bengals have been observed hunting large muggers on land or in very shallow water on numerous occasions in other areas of India. Some have even been known to specialize in hunting large crocs. Certainly, a saltwater croc is a larger and more aggressive species than the mugger, but by the same token there is enough overlap in sizes of mugger and salties that evidence of mugger predation suggests that a tiger has the capability of subduing a saltwater croc as well in the right circumstances.

Clearly, interaction between tigers and saltwater crocodiles in the Sundarbans is extremely rare, given the dearth of accounts on the subject. It seems likely that both apex predators give the other a wide berth in most circumstances, which makes sense given the capabilities of the two species. However, on the rare occasion where circumstances have left one or the other particularly vulnerable to attack, both are such highly-capable predators that they are likely to take advantage (as you stated above, and as relayed in the 2011 account of the crocodile preying upon the tiger).

Your conclusion was that we have "an unverified 3rd-hand account of a ludicrously large crocodile which behaves in ways no crocodile has ever been seen to and succumbs to attacks that most crocodiles tolerate with ease, and is then dispatched in a highly unusual way by a ludicrously strong tiger", but as I stated above, the account does not really describe the crocodile as behaving in strange ways or succumbing to an unusual attack because the account doesn't indicate that the crocodile attacked the tiger with its tail when they were on land or that the tiger struck a blow to the crocodile's skull. Whether the crocodile attacked the tiger with its tail at all as they crossed the waterway is likely up for debate as I am sure it would have been difficult for an observer to tell exactly what was going on amidst the likely splashing and thrashing that probably would have accompanied this interaction. But I just don't agree that the account itself is as contrary to known science as you seem to think.

The fact that Sandal relayed this account to a journalist rather than observing it himself is certainly worth pointing out, and I concede that the extreme weight estimation for the crocodile in question seems a bit dubious and should not be included due to the potential for misleading readers. But again, the fact that Sandal himself chose to believe and relay this account, given his expertise on the subject itself and extreme credibility, should be the deciding factor here in my opinion. I don't think it's fair or reasonable to assume that such an expert would be duped by a fabricated account and I am confident that such an expert would reject an account that flagrantly contradicts his observations and/or known science. For this reason, I feel that the reference to this account should remain in the story and readers should have the ability to click on the New Yorker citation to obtain the full details. Respectfully, Ronnymexico (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

While, upon further reading, I was wrong about "striking it in the head" (though that text does appear in the WP text I removed), the article does state, and I quote: "Crossing a broad river, like this one, a tiger had been followed by a crocodile. Maneuvering alongside the tiger, the crocodile thrashed its great tail, striking the tiger across his nose."

This is flat-out false. No crocodile would use its tail as a primary or initial means of attack, ever. Second, the flipping is still ludicrous, especially given that it's depicted as done with one paw, and that it's depicted as being done to a live, conscious croc. What, did it just sit there and let it happen rather than crushing the tiger in its jaws? And even if it were possible, the croc would simply rapidly flip back over (as they do when spinning for the colorfully-named "death rolls"). I'm sitting here, trying to think of any possible way to flip a large crocodile without being immediately killed, and drawing a blank. Maybe the tiger was driving a fork-lift?

Dr. Sanyal's credentials are irrelevant - plenty of well-meaning experts have been duped in the past about the existence of assorted gigantic or exotic beasts. Hell, there are PhD anthropologists who believe in Bigfoot. Not to mention the numerous accounts, sometimes presented by people with substantial field experience and/or scientific training, of 30+ foot snakes.

The fact of the matter is that this account is unverified, undocumented, and requires both ludicrous physical strength from the tiger and behavior that is a contradictory to crocodilian hunting as a bear riding a unicycle. Until a peer-reviewed scientific journal article is presented as evidence, it will be removed. HCA (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Change "man-eating" to "human-eating"

There have been cases of tigers eating women, not just men. The word "human" means both men and women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.57.240.170 (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2013

Please change "Minnesota University" to "The University of Minnesota" this is its proper name. This occurs at the end of the first paragraph of the success of rewilding section. The page that is linked to is for The University of Minnesota and the person who is referenced works there. http://fwcb.cfans.umn.edu/Faculty/Smith/ Olso1912 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 14:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2013

The statement about white tigers being widely bred in zoos in not correct. "A well-known allele produces the white tiger, an animal which is rare in the wild but widely bred in zoos due to its popularity" The sentence infers that all zoos are breeding them. Most AZA-accredited zoos are not breeding white tigers. The SSP view is that the limited available space for tigers should be devoted to genetically important tigers. There are many private individuals and non-accredited zoos that are breeding white tigers.

Shepmantis (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed and Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Climate change?

Removed the claim that tiger attacks are increasing on humans because of rapid habitat losses due to climate change. The "citation" was a link to an environmental news website that republished a 2008 Reuters article. The basis of this entire claim was an extremely weak 2 sentence quote from an "expert" from the World Conservation Union. No reference to any sort of legitimate study or research. Absolute garbage unless it can be properly verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.0.98.225 (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree: it's a dubious claim to say the least. While climate change is unlikely to do any good to tigers, and habitat loss is indeed the major cause of decline, that habitat loss is mainly due to human expansion. If that expansion is related to climate change, it is not by a simple mechanism. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I also agree but note the claim is still there. Can it be removed please? Gcmackay (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2014

I wish to add valuable insights about the phenotype differences between different species of tigers.

Yoloswerver (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Please specify your valuable insights here and a confirmed editor will consider adding them to the article. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Film, theatre

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; what else should we include? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but I think that section needs some citations. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, let's not forget the tiger as a symbol for sports teams like the Detroit Tigers and Cincinnati Bengals. LittleJerry (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed not, you should certainly add them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Could you add at one cite for the first and third parahraphs in "In literature and film". LittleJerry (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Can't see much point in adding the primary references (the books and films themselves), which are self-referencing; nor do we normally try to reference plot descriptions, when we describe the content of a book or film we just do it, see any book or film article. Since that's all these contain, at a loss to know what a ref would be; IMDB etc are not specially good, and neither necessary nor specially relevant. If you have an idea what is needed, feel free. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright then. LittleJerry (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I think we have all the major cultural references. I recently added Tony the Tiger. LittleJerry (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. And Esso/Exxon corp. used the slogan "Put a tiger in your tank"... which would certainly need citing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tiger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shoebox2 (talk · contribs) 18:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I'm so pleased to see this important and interesting article proposed for GA, and to introduce myself as the reviewer for same. I know I'm a bit new at this, but have garnered experience on other major biology articles and have learned to genuinely enjoy collaborating with knowledgeable editors. If you've any specific concerns, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll try to have my preliminary review up within a few days. Shoebox2 talk 18:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on the review. Preparing the article has been a collaborative effort between LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap and myself. We look forward to your comments and criticisms. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I think better sources are required for any content based on lairweb as the site contains lots of misinformation and if no better source is found to verify the content based on lairweb, they should be removed. The site got even the basic anatomy of the cats wrong. The site quoted very few sources and the sourced content there is mostly syntheses of sourced material as well. I read that site over 10 years ago and it hasn't improved since then. BigCat82 (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed and replaced the lairweb cites. LittleJerry (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well hey, great. At this rate, you lot will have the entire review done before I even finish reading. :) Shoebox2 talk 22:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the efforts Jerry! I just expanded the man eater section with more information on the measures to prevent tiger attacks based on the new reliable source you found (none of these methods actually work well) - pls see if that section needs to be slimmed down to meet the GA standards.

Looks the right size. Chap already slimmed in down from a larger size. LittleJerry (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have two drive by comments. Shouldn't fossil subspecies be present in the taxobox as well? And isn't the range map wrong, since there were apparently Caspian tigers in Turkey as well? Source of the range map info should also be mentioned in the file description page. FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The fossil subspecies are now present in the taxobox. The range map includes the Caspian tiger in its inset map. I have added a description to the range map file.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Preliminary review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

In general an admirably comprehensive, very well-written article worthy of such an iconic subject; has definite future potential as an FA candidate. The major issue--and I do mean major--currently standing between the article and GA status is the dubious sourcing and very messy citation list.

As per my usual practice, I'll provide a brief point-by-point overview using the template below, then post a more detailed list of fixes below that in a day or so.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Prose is as noted very readable; the multiple authors are to be commended for keeping the overall style flowing smoothly, and for striking a pleasantly engaging balance between the requirements of scientific description and lay readership.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Lead is a bit heavy on the conservation information, but given that's a main reason many will have for looking up this article, not inappropriately so. Layout appears to involve a few too many subheadings (the material in 'Interspecific predatory relationships' in particular seems as though it could be neatly absorbed into 'Hunting and diet' without too much trouble) but is broadly consistent with standard for zoological articles. Word choice is fine, and tone is appropriately dispassionate, in the manner of a textbook. Fiction is obviously n/a. List usage is confined to two well-chosen and designed tables.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   As noted above, this is the article's Achilles heel, and will be similarly fatal to the nomination if a lot of work isn't done ASAP. Citation list is just very, very messy, with no standardised formatting evident and significant missing info in most individual cites.

   ETA: As per the nominator's note on my talkpage, a bit of clarification is in order here. As they correctly pointed out, a pristine reference section is a requirement of FA, not GA status; also that it might be very difficult to flesh out specific details on an older ref at this short notice. So no, I'm not actually planning to fail the article if every single page number isn't in place ASAP, and I apologise if that was the impression I left. Right now, the quality of the sources is what the article authors should be most concerned with, esp. given there's clearly a lot to be concerned about there as well.

   However. There is a lot more wrong with the reference section (or was, at the time the above was written) than a few missing page numbers. We're talking missing authors, dates, even titles. A cite that makes it impossible to immediately and clearly identify the source in question isn't acceptable; several, I think it's safe to say, do not constitute an 'appropriate reference section'. Especially not when dealing with one of the most important zoological articles on Wikipedia. As I mentioned below, there's really no excuse at any level for an encyclopedic article on tigers not to have an ironclad reflist. Shoebox2 talk 14:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

1. B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   A few unreffed statements within the article body. More concerningly, an article on an animal the article itself describes as 'the world's most popular' has no excuse not to have an exemplary list of ironclad references, and that's not at all what I'm seeing here. Oddities found just at a quick first glance include two editions of a single book being cited separately (ref #s 36 & 39); a very heavy reliance on a general guide to mammals (#45); a wholly inappropriate citation to The Daily Mail, a notorious tabloid (#102); and a worryingly large number of cites to random online factsheets (including a ten-year-old inactive SeaWorld page and, at #s 121-123, the apparently-unreliable 'lairweb.com' mentioned above) rather than what must be an overabundance of formally fact-checked, published material.

   C. No original research:

   Rather impressively in an article of this length and scope, there's no agenda evident save the scientific, and even if the execution is shaky the desire to properly cite all statements is clearly there.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   In general, nicely covers all aspects of the topic while giving appropriate weight to each, which again is quite an achievement. However there are ome minor but noticeable problems with completeness/potentially incorrect information in certain areas; the table of subspecies could do a better job of standardising each one's characteristics and explaining each one in relation to the others, eg. which is the smallest/largest, darkest/lightest etc. I'd also definitely recommend some more research into the etymology of tigris, as it appears to be much more complicated than is implied here.

   B. Focused:

   Manages in the main to provide just enough detail to be satisfying to the reader on every point without overwhelming them on any particular one.

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   At this point there can't be many controversies left in tiger scholarship, so the basically straightforward narrative here, with occasional detours into the unusual, is appropriate and well-handled.

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article is indef semi-protected against vandalism, which seems to be working well. Multiple major editors all seem to be working well together, and civil & constructive discussion appears to be the talkpage norm.

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Spot-checked about two-thirds of the images, and all seems to be in order, mostly free images used.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images are generally well-chosen, albeit captions could be a bit more informative (especially as regards the video). I'd also suggest slightly increasing the size of the thumbnails in the tables, given that the idea is to compare and contrast the various subspecies.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   There's an awful lot of work to do here, most of it involving references and the citation list. However, there are also three co-nominators (and apparently a fourth who's keeping an eye on things) so for now I've got no problem giving it a few days to see what can be done, and will post more detailed suggestions as they're needed at that point. You've got the makings of a fine article on one of the more important topics in the entire Wiki-project, here; I urge you to make sure it lives up to that in all respects.Shoebox2 talk 00:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful comments. However I am concerned that you are going beyond the GA guidelines for references. The guidance states "Mistakes to avoid - Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. (If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)" There is no requirement for the reference list to be in perfect order as per FAC - indeed, that is one of the major differences in the two - and reviewers are enjoined not to worry about the matter. We have for goodwill cleaned up (and replaced) a good number of the untidiest references but that is above and beyond the call of duty. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This has already been addressed, under point 2A above. As I mentioned there, at the time of writing it was in fact actively difficult for the reader to figure out what several of the sources were--and this, I will repeat again, in an article wherein there was absolutely no excuse for it; in a scientific article, precision in presenting data should be a basic concern, not a 'goodwill' concession. Therefore I emphasised the point. I've since had another look at the reflist and it's much better in this respect, so I think we can all safely move on from this discussion.

My major concern at the moment, as I also mentioned above, is the quality of the sources, and by extension the quality of the information gleaned therefrom. This nom has been active for a couple days now all told, and in that time I've found a possible factual error based on a misreading of the source (the Latin eytmology of tigris); an editor not associated with the article has pointed out one extensively-used source as unreliable (which source is still being used, incidentally--see ref #35) and one source as totally misrepresented in the text; and another, experienced reviewer (User:FunkMonk, above) has pointed out another possible factual issue/problems with sourcing.

Given all of which, I'm beginning to be genuinely concerned that the nominators--and for that matter, myself as reviewer--have underestimated the scope of work involved in making a cohesive, GA-quality article out of what must be many, many layers of random editing over the years since it was created. Especially given the indef-protection, indicating that vandalism is a serious and ongoing problem.

Understand that I am not actively looking for ways to fail this article; I would love nothing better than to see it succeed. Under the circs, though, I am seriously wondering if failing it now would not give all editors concerned needed time to ensure the 'Factual' and 'Citation to reliable sources' criteria are met. At the very least, since the traditional week given nominators to sort out any issues still has five days yet to run, may I suggest they make that the primary and urgent focus? Shoebox2 talk 16:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"an editor not associated with the article has pointed out one extensively-used source as unreliable (which source is still being used, incidentally--see ref #35)" - Has this point been resolved? The numbering of references change and the present #35 looks unexceptional, so perhaps you could better define the suspect source. I have also expanded the etymology of "tigris" as required above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have dealt with the range map (it includes the range of the Caspian tiger in the circular inset) and its sourcing and someone else seems to have added the fossil subspecies to the taxobox. Are there any other issues? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I truly appreciate the efforts of Cwmhiraeth and those who take part in the improvement of the article. While I am not familiar with the criteria to become a GA, Shoebox2 raised some important points in the review process here, such as the remnant edits of the past vandalism that requires our collaborative efforts to identify and correct. The inaccuracies and misrepresented sources I found here so far all understated tigers; yet ironically our featured Lion article has opinions(!), unsourced content and misrepresented sources that are all exaggerations... These could unlikely be genuine editing errors but as both articles have been semiprotected for a long time serious vandalism is no longer a problem. Even if we don't have enough time to get it to become a GA this time, we can still take this chance to improve it and remove any remnant edits of the past vandalism. To a reader I think the accuracy is more important than the standardizing format, etc and I will take my time to focus on improving the accuracy. Thanks everyone. BigCat82 (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, it isn't a rule that a review should only last 7 days. It is up to the reviewer how long to keep it open. There is no limit. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of progress thus far

OK, first of all, I'd like to commend the nominators, who've shown an admirable willingness to fix and improve where needed, and to specially thank BigCat82 (author of the above unsigned comment) and FunkMonk for taking an interest as well. Clearly we're all here to improve the article. I'd also just mention that I did a pageview check on this article for March'14, and according to same this was the 839th most-visited article in that timespan--out of at least 70k+ articles. Thus, as noted previously, I feel a particular obligation to make sure what we've got here is the best possible article going, and hope everyone agrees with that as well. :)

I signed it after seeing your comment sorry for the confusion. BigCat82 (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

With that in mind, I've just had another look at the article, and have come to the following conclusions:

• The reference section now looks a whole lot better, at least from the technical standpoint. I'm still a trifle perturbed at the idea that cleaning up cites would be considered going above and beyond in a scientific article, but overall, we can all consider this fixed and move on.

• The prose is basically fine, certainly GA-worthy. There are places where word choice/grammar becomes an issue, but it's never close to fatal. As noted above the overall tone is great and the reading flows smoothly.

• Presentation of information is likewise mostly exemplary, with a couple exceptions:

a) The info--and the comparisons drawn therefrom--in the subspecies tables isn't entirely standardised. These tables should be designed so that the reader can quickly and efficiently identify the major differences between the subspecies (ie., what distinguishes a particular one from all the others), and they currently don't do that as well as they should (in particular, why only give population numbers for three of the six living subspecies?). Along these lines I'd also suggest increasing the thumbnail images a bit.

That all the information we have on subspecies differences from reliable sources. Sumatran is smallest, darkest and stripiest while the Siberian is largest, lightest and has fewest stripes. LittleJerry (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's approach it this way: If you standardise and source the data metrics across all eight entries (as a suggested starting point, drop vague statements like "is one of the smaller tiger subspecies" and simply give length/weight/colour & markings/range & population for each), the needed comparisons can then be easily made by the reader. All you then need to do is emphasise in text the superlatives you've already documented--indicating biggest/smallest, most common/rarest, lightest/darkest and (as long as you've got the info) most/least stripiest would be fine.Shoebox2 talk 14:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Have removed vague claim (leaving the figures) and resized the images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

b) Most of the topic subdivisions make sense, however there are a few that seem arbitrary -- the information in both "Interspecific predatory relationships" and "Rewilding" seems like it could be folded into other divisions without much trouble. I also strongly question giving the "World's favourite animal" poll its own section; listing the full results of same is unnecessary, which reduces the section to the first two sentences. I'd then suggest moving these to the top of the "cultural depictions' section as part of a short introductory paragraph.

"Interspecific predatory relationships" wouldn't fit anywhere else. Hunting and diet is large enough. LittleJerry (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with LittlJerry, but I have got rid of the "World's favourite animal" subsection. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with LittleJerry and Cwmhiraeth too. However the section can be slimmed down as I found undue weight had been given to extraordinarily rare incidents (which probably used to understate tigers if we compare the same heavily biased section with bogus exaggerations in the lion article - I will correct it, put up a list and explanation in talk later). BigCat82 (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, point made and conceded re: size. As a compromise have moved that section directly under "Hunting and diet", where it makes most sense, and renamed to make the relationship between the two sections clearer. Meanwhile, about "Rewilding"...?Shoebox2 talk 15:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

c) The "in captivity" section is rather poorly developed. I'd suggest separating out populations being held captive with a conservation focus from those merely held as pets/exhibits/circus animals what-have-you. The former info can then be placed under 'Conservation'.

d) Captions could be more informative. In particular, readers should be able to tell what they're getting into before they click on a video.

I have improved some captions but see no video included in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think more information concerning tigers kept in circus, in historic Roman Colosseum etc is good for the readers. I will add the relevant information later. BigCat82 (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As of yesterday, the article included File:Panthera tigris1.ogg under "Size", captioned simply "Video from Disney's Animal Kingdom". It was removed apparently by LittleJerry in favour of the current image of the Siberian stretching. Captions do look better, and I agree that more info re: circus and other tigers held in non-conservation-oriented captivity would be helpful. Shoebox2 talk 14:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• There's a lot of cite bundling going on throughout this article, in which a lone cite at the end of a paragraph/several sentences is apparently (I'm heavily AGF here) meant to cover all the info contained therein. While I appreciate the tidiness of this as much as the next reader, I'm a little concerned by how frequently it recurs, indicating a heavy reliance on one source for entire topics, and accordingly making it difficult for the reader to check individual statements. By contrast, several fairly innocuous bits of info (ie.'Crocodiles, bears and dholes may prevail against and even kill tigers") have three-four cites all to themselves. Would suggest using this as a starting-point for...

Those cites are for each animal. Its apples and oranges. LittleJerry (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly where undue weight was given by past editor(s). In fact only two cases of dholes killing tigers of unknown sizes and ages with heavy casualties with unknown reasons were reported throughout the history, and according to an extensive study on dhole and tiger relationship, no single tiger, adult or cub, were killed since 1990. These extraordinarily rare incidents should not be here - hyenas are well known natural enemies of lions, and hyenas killing adult female lions is not uncommon and well documented but it isn't mentioned anywhere in the lion article at all as of now. I will correct and update the info in both articles and explain further in talk. BigCat82 (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well done and fair points (although I note the revised version of this now includes six cites. There's no overlap, really? Each source only lists one single animal?) However my main concern here is more that a lot of material is either going unsourced or potentially appears to be. As I say, I understand the rationale behind cite bundling and am willing to assume good faith up to the point of GA status, but as per below, best practice would dictate checking and possibly citing more thoroughly. Shoebox2 talk 14:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• ...addressing my major concern with the article as it stands, which BigCat82 eloquently echoes above: the quality of the sourcing, and the accompanying inability to trust the info in the article. Not to harp on the point, but in just a few days after the review opened, several major factual/sourcing issues had been identified. The ten-year-old SeaWorld(!) page is still listed as cite #48, and what appears to be a completely anonymous blogger at #49 -- and this is what's being used to source something as important as the dimensions of a subspecies. The negative statement regarding the regulation of the US captive population is sourced to the website of an organization with a clear bias in favour of that statement (#139).

I have removed and replaced #48 and #49. With regard to #139, the conservation organization concerned may be biased but I think the information it provides in this respect is very reliable, the law in each state being actually quoted if you click through on the link provided. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Shoebox2 referred to the statement "America's tiger population is poorly controlled: while nineteen states have banned private ownership of tigers, fifteen require a license, and sixteen states have no regulations at all" - the use of wordings poorly controlled and the way the fact was presented indicated s strongly biased opinion as the source is neutral and didn't comment whether it is poorly or nicely controlled. BigCat82 (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad that the biased statement has gone. Thank you BigCat82 for your continuing help with improving this article, it's really helpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Seconded re: the helpfulness. :) Also, yes, as a general rule you want to be very careful indeed when citing controversial statements -- the reader is going to click through and see the obvious bias, and the entire article's credibility is potentially going to be tainted. Shoebox2 talk 14:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This all becomes a particular problem when, well, see above (repeatedly) re: unusually important article, and obligations inherent therein. It makes me very, very leery of declaring a GA unless I have some evidence that the nominators are making the effort to not just fix what's pointed out to them, but systematically validate prior sources, check statements and generally ensure that all is accurate and plausibly sourced. Just to make things clear, I am not doubting the nominators' competence; I've been impressed by their responsiveness to issues thus far. And I'm aware that some things will be difficult to check; I don't need a legal document signed by God that the article is 100% accurate. I just want to see the effort being made, and some assurance that it will continue to be.

There is absolutely no GA criterion that states that a nominator has to give an " assurance that [the article] will continue to be [monitored]" after becoming a GA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair point, have stricken the wishful thinking from the record accordingly. :) I had made the assumption based on previous experience--but certainly without asking as I should have--that the nominators' intent was to continue working on the article past GA. Apologies. Shoebox2 talk 15:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Our featured article Lion has obviously deteriorated greatly to a standard way below a GA should be given all the biased opinions and misinformation boosting the lions into an alien king of the universe status. But after this review process with all the valuable discussions and constructive edits, there will be clearer directions and references for future editors to contribute constructively, and I being a leo born lion fan and big cat lover will continue to monitor most big cat articles for accuracy. BigCat82 (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Great, as a fellow big cat lover myself that's most excellent to know. :) I'm seeing lots of good work here from everyone on citations and accuracy already, and am really impressed. Shoebox2 talk 14:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

So. FunkMonk is correct that there isn't a formal time limit on the nom process. And I think, given the responsiveness I've seen thus far, that the above is doable within a reasonable span of time (also, that one of the nominators has notified me that they're on Wikibreak for a few days), so am willing to be patient, and am always open to discussion. Looking forward to passing the article when all is addressed. Shoebox2 talk 23:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Remaining items

ETA: Right, thanks everyone for all the work put in thus far. I reviewed the article again yesterday... which you'll note somehow turned into a full-on copyedit (being home sick and bored will do that to you). Any changes I've made are of course subject to review and approval by the nominators, although between what I've done and what everyone else has accomplished this week, I think what we've got here is an amazingly improved article that I'll be pleased to pass. There are just a few remaining unsourced passages that I'd like to see either verified or removed before that happens:

• "More recent attempts have been made using camera trapping and studies on DNA from their scat. Radio collaring has also been used to track tigers in the wild."

Ref added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• "In India's Nagarhole National Park, most prey selected by leopards were from 30 to 175 kg (66 to 386 lb) against a preference for prey weighing over 176 kg (388 lb) in the tigers. The average prey weight in the two respective big cats in India was 37.6 kg (83 lb) against 91.5 kg (202 lb)." --Not only unsourced but unecessarily repetitive?

This was sourced, but have repeated the ref; and there's no actual repetition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• "In some cases, villagers beating drums were organised to drive the animals into the killing zone. Elaborate instructions were available for the skinning of tigers and there were taxidermists who specialised in the preparation of tiger skins."

Sounds true but source is not evident, removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Man-eating tigers only rarely enter and attack in villages. Tigers stalk humans like other prey before pouncing from close range." --Would generally like to see this paragraph sourced to something a bit more recent then Corbett; given the paragraph immediately below it there's no scarcity of modern material on tigers' methods of hunting humans.

Removed the quoted part, merged the rest with para above, where Corbett forms only a small element. As you say, there is already discussion in next para of more recent findings (which agree pretty well with the old stuff, actually). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Once the above has been taken care of, and the nominators have either signed off on my changes or made their preferred revisions in turn, as noted I'll be more than pleased to pass the article. (For that matter, I might continue to work on it myself if the nominators don't plan to--all that's really missing for FAC right now is the sourcing...) Shoebox2 talk 18:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck. I myself have no intention of bringing this to FAC. I no longer have the time and energy for those. LittleJerry (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, all looks good (and thank you!). Will pass the article now, with warm commendations for all involved. Shoebox2 talk 22:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

GA possibility

I've been thinking of bring this article to GAN. I think it just needs some fixing up, (source formatting and maybe a spotcheck) and a little more info. Anybody interested? Any major contributors? LittleJerry (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, why not. It is not far off. I have tidied up text and images, removed some old uncited claims, and cut the conservation and human interaction material from the subspecies section, where it doesn't belong. Having looked where to put it, it seems mostly not usable or redundant with existing conservation discussion, so here it is in case anyone can see how to save (some of) it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

(Bengal tiger) (described in existing conservation section)

In 1972, Project Tiger was founded in India aiming at ensuring a viable population of tigers in the country and preserving areas of biological importance as a natural heritage for the people. But the illicit demand for bones and body parts from wild tigers for use in traditional Chinese medicine is the reason for the unrelenting poaching pressure on tigers on the Indian subcontinent. Between 1994 and 2009, the Wildlife Protection Society of India has documented 893 cases of tigers killed in India, which is just a fraction of the actual poaching and illegal trade in tiger parts during those years. An area of special conservation interest lies in the Terai Arc Landscape in the Himalayan foothills of northern India and southern Nepal, where 11 protected areas comprising dry forest foothills and tall grass savannas harbor tigers in a landscape of 49,000 square kilometres (19,000 sq mi). The goals are to manage tigers as a single metapopulation, the dispersal of which between core refuges can help maintain genetic, demographic, and ecological integrity, and to ensure that species and habitat conservation becomes mainstreamed into the rural development agenda. In Nepal, a community-based tourism model has been developed with a strong emphasis on sharing benefits with local people and on the regeneration of degraded forests. The approach has been successful in reducing poaching, restoring habitats, and creating a local constituency for conservation.

(Indochinese tiger)

According to government estimates of national tiger populations, the subspecies numbers around 350 individuals.

(Malayan tiger)

According to official government figures, the population in the wild may number around 500 individuals, but is under considerable poaching pressure. The Malayan tiger is the smallest of the mainland tiger subspecies, and the second-smallest living subspecies, with males averaging about 120 kg (260 lb) and females about 100 kg (220 lb) in weight. The Malayan tiger is a national icon in Malaysia, appearing on its coat of arms and in logos of Malaysian institutions, such as Maybank.

(Sumatran tiger)

Their rarity has led to suggestions that Sumatran tigers should have greater priority for conservation than any other subspecies. While habitat destruction is the main threat to existing tiger population (logging continues even in the supposedly protected national parks), 66 tigers were recorded as being shot and killed between 1998 and 2000, or nearly 20% of the total population.

(South China tiger)

In 2007, a farmer spotted a tiger and handed in photographs to the authorities as proof. The photographs in question, however, were later exposed as fake, copied from a Chinese calendar and digitally altered, and the "sighting" turned into a massive scandal.

I think the websites "Lairweb.org" and "Bangalinet.com" is inappropriate as a source. I'm not sure about "Bigcathaven.org" and "Bigcatrescue.org". LittleJerry (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is shaping up well. The only problem I see is the noted sources still being there. I'll expand more on communication and evolution soon. LittleJerry (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you think there is too much in the "Conservation" section about conservation of the different sub-species? Each subspecies has its own article and I propose moving the conservation bits to these, just leaving a summary here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, so we'll have just a unified conservation text for the whole species. In that case I think we can ditch the text I already removed above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you think the "Interspecific predatory relationships" subsection is too big? LittleJerry (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm on it. LittleJerry (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to expand more on communication. Meanwhile, I think "Colour variations" should be rewritten with better sources (and possibly shorter with no subsections). Once these are done, I think we're ready for GA. Any other thoughts? LittleJerry (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if we don't need to cut down 'Tiger attacks' to a more coherent and concise story. It is long, chatty, and somewhat rambling - do we need to discuss leopards, etc, in there? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you have a point there. LittleJerry (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I think we should add some info on genomics. I find this.

Also, I wonder if 'Characteristics and evolution' is a well-formed section. Maybe 'Description', to contain the current 'characteristics' (not a great name, nor necessary) and the Colour variations stuff, and 'Evolution' to contain the phylogeny, genomics, and subspecies? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. LittleJerry (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

They weigh up to 306kg?

That is surely false precision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision How are numbers normally converted from or into SI? Saying that something weighs up to 306 pounds really implies extreme precision and small variance. I even think that the 670lb thing is a bit too accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.239.216.61 (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree if it said something like "Tigers typically weigh 90–306 kg", but doesn't the "up to" in the article imply 306 kg is the greatest weight recorded? I can't access the cited source ([1]). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

agreed. Saying it weighing up to 670lb and reaching a length up to 3.3m in the intro yet saying a specimen weighed 857lb in the content is weird enough, especially it is being nominated for a GA. Just corrected the intro and added the reference for this reliably measured 857lb specimen. Note the 857lb specimen has a length of 3.38m over the curves. The use of the words "up to" must be followed by the largest known measurements - 3.3m and 670lb are clearly not the maximum values based on reliable records. BigCat82 (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Cogratulations

This is my official congratulations for raising this page to WP:GA: !--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

On behalf of all of us who've worked to get it there, Tony, thanks. :) Shoebox2 talk 23:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

A list of misinformation identified so far

Okay the following inaccuracies and misinformation were identified throughout the GA review process, and I will update this section with newly detected misinformation without starting a new section before the GA review finishes for the ease of reading. Most if not all the problems were about understatements and negative comments(!) on tigers, and as discussed earlier they may be the remnants of past vandalism. These areas are the obvious targets chosen to minimize tigers so I am putting up the list for easy monitoring in the future. Everything that is being listed here has been just corrected by me or by the GA editors.

• Hunting & diet:
  • Elephant & tiger conflicts: Tigers preying upon elephants of different growth stages, from calves to adults is well documented in independent sources. Yet the original content misrepresented the source, saying elephants typically dominating tigers while the source quoted said exactly the opposite. On the other hand, lion prides attacking adult healthy elephants lacks documentation but the misinformation had been in the lion article using a source that documented lions preying on an elephant calf before I just removed it.
  • Hunting success rate: Sources reported 5 to 50% success rate, but the text cherry picked the lowest possible number and was negatively written as "However, only one in 20 hunts" ends in a successful kill rather than neutrally reflected what was said in the sources. In fact, according to the latest study, the lower limit of 5% was just a plain guess (in fact 5% success rate is the lowest rate much lower than the reported hunting success rate of all other big cats) and the study showed that at least for Amur tigers, their hunting success rate is 40-50% depending on prey and geographic locations. Since the study only refuted the error but didn't calculate the general hunting success rate of all tiger subspecies in general, I cannot use it here. But at least the upper limit 50% reported in the original sources must be included here.
• Interspecific predatory relationships:
  • Content on certain prey species killing tigers & further elaboration. "Crocodiles, bears and dholes may prevail against and even kill tigers.[5][43][89] In particular, dholes may attack and kill a tiger if pack is quite large.[83]" Undue weight was given here as crocodiles, bears and dholes are tigers' prey, and tigers being killed by them are extraordinarily rare and ill documented. Like the reasons discussed in the separate tiger elephant talk section, tigers are cautious predators (in fact more cautious than lions from the opinions of animal experts) and will attack only if they estimate a high chance of dominating the prey. If not, they simply don't attack. Crocodiles, bears and dholes run slower than tigers so the exceptional strong individuals are simply unable to actively pursuit and kill a tiger as long as the tiger stays out of their ways. As a matter of fact, the much larger and more powerful Nile crocodiles killing lions is also extraordinarily rare, so the smaller mugger crocodile that are less than half the weight of the Nile crocodile killing tigers (which are bigger and stronger than lions) is simply equally rare if not rarer. Yes salt water crocodiles are powerful and can devour tigers and lions if they come close, but encounters with these monsters are very rare, and again no tiger and lion will commit suicide by actively running to them as it simply contradicts any aspect of the behavior of most predators. As for dholes, there were only two cases of dholes killing tigers of unknown ages, sizes and health conditions with heavy casualties with unknown reasons were reported briefly throughout the history, and according to an extensive study on dhole and tiger relationship by Dr Karanth, no single tiger, adult or cub, were killed since 1990. I am not saying these incidents have never happened but these extraordinarily rare incidents should not be included due to WP:UNDUE - hyenas are well known natural enemies of lions, and hyenas killing healthy adult lions is not uncommon and well documented but it isn't even mentioned anywhere in the lion article at all as of now. On the other hand, crocodiles, bears and dholes are not considered natural enemies but prey of tigers. In fact, the use of word "may" also suggests the statement is speculative to some extent.

I have restored this. The comment relates to general conflicts and not just killings. LittleJerry (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Weight & dimensions:
  • The biggest individual. The biggest reliably measured specimen is 857 lb, not 675 lb as originally stated in the intro as the upper limit. Tigers in captivity actually attain sizes way beyond this limit (e.g. the famous 1,025 lb siberian tiger Jaipur), but I think measurements of wild tigers are more meaningful.

BigCat82 (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification needed

This section has a couple of problems. First, what is the "modern era" - this needs defining. Second, it states there are nine subspecies, the tables show 9 subspecies, but the taxo box lists 10 subspecies - which is correct?__DrChrissy (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As per the edit summary I left in reverting your changes: there are ten total subspecies of tiger currently recognised. One is prehistoric, and hence known only from fossils; there's thus no real point in including it in the table. The others all survived at least until fairly recently, hence "into the modern era" (a term that is generally understood to mean "comparatively recently"). I'll take a crack at making all this a bit clearer. Shoebox2 talk 12:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The changes you have made are great! Thanks for the effort and time.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Please don't hesitate to raise any other issues as you find them; the input of specialist editors in an article like this is always valuable and appreciated. Shoebox2 talk 12:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Social activity

"Young males seeking to establish themselves thereby comprise the highest mortality rate (30–35% per year) amongst adult tigers" - syntax is a bit garbled here, and the sentence is unclear, but I don't want to try and guess the intended meaning. Can anyone fix? Notreallydavid (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Caspian Tiger locations

This article is semi-protected so I can't do this, but can someone please correct the cardinal direction in the Caspian Tiger section? All of the geographical regions mentioned in that section are EAST of the Caspian Sea, not WEST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredirc (talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't find the problem you mentioned, before or after your above edit. Are you talking about our Caspian tiger article? BigCat82 (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The text in question: Was found in the sparse forest habitats and riverine corridors west and south of the Caspian Sea and west through Central Asia into the Takla-Makan desert of Xinjiang, (Emphasis mine) While the first part of the statement is true, about it being found west and south (more accurately southwest, but accurate enough), but the SECOND west is entirely wrong, as Central Asia, Takla-Makan, and Xinjang are all definetly EAST of the Caspian Sea, and thus east of the previous geographical references of its range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredirc (talk • contribs) 01:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Done: thanks for pointing it out. BigCat82 (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

tigers & elegantes - source misrepresentation

I am checking the accuracy of each cite, and I noticed the following content has been here for many years:

Adult elephants are too large to serve as common prey, but conflicts between tigers and Asian elephants, with the huge elephant typically dominating the predator, were recorded in the nineteenth century (Frank Leslie's popular monthly, Volume 45, 1879, edited by Frank Leslie, New York: Frank Leslie's Publishing House. 53, 55, & 57 Park Place. p. 411)

However the following is what the source exactly reads (p. 411):

...Elephants are very fearful of tigers, and always show more or less alarm when in their vicinity. I have known many on elephant to turn tail and run away when near the tiger's lair, and sometimes all the efforts of the mahout failed to check them. Not infrequently they run under the limbs of trees in their flight, and the howdah and its occupants are brushed off. Major R , of Lucknow, was killed in this way during a tiger-hunt in the Pumeah district. A tiger charged his elephant, and the latter ran away. As it passed under a tree the howdah was swept off, and the major and his servant were both killed by the fall. When in the neighborhood of a tiger the elephant generally holds his trunk high in the air, as it is his most vulnerable point, and he is anxious to protect it from injury. In a fight with a tiger the elephant uses his trunk very little, through fear of injury, but endeavors to trample his enemy under foot or pierce him with his tusks. Once let an elephant get his heavy foot fairly on a tiger, and the fight is soon over; it is all up with the yellow-coated thief -or, rather, it is all down with him. But in the majority of fights between them, the tiger generally gets the best of it, or would do so, if man did not come to the elephant's aid. In one of our hunts in the northeast we had one elephant killed by a tiger-or, rather, he was so badly hurt that he died the next day-and another very severely wounded. Even the elephant's thick hide cannot resist the tiger's claws; and as for his teeth, they have been known to make an impression on a plate of iron...

Please notice the bold text, "...in the majority of fights between them, the tiger generally gets the best of it". Yet in the content it says "...the huge elephant typically dominating the predator". There is no such an implication in the original source, so it is purely a made up statement. In fact the opposite is true according to the source. Tigers attacking elephants yet usually got dominated by the elephants simply contradicts any aspect of the behavior of most predators like tigers and leopards, which are very cautious predators. They will attack only if they think they have a high chance of dominating the prey. I have corrected it to reflect exactly what the source said. There are some more reliable news reports on tigers killing adult elephants but I don't want to expand it further. BigCat82 (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks BigCat82. Your input and changes are much appreciated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Just saying but BigCat82 you have got a good point and thanks for changing it Lavinder111 (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2014

Tigers - Recent genetic studies of Tigers have startled scientists and have shown that Tigers are more closely related to Snow Leopards rather than Lions, Jaguars & Leopards as previously thought and mentioned on the 'Tigers' Wikipedia page where it states 'Tigers are more closely related to Lions, Jaguars & Leopards'.<1><2> Refer to 'BBC News articles', 'Wildlife Extra News' just to name a couple of sources for the news of the recent find. 1.BBC News Article, Wildlife Extra Kind Regards, Mike Raft110.20.86.90 (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Done: Note however that the finding was based only on similarities found in a very short DNA sequence in mitochondria and the sex chromosomes. It was the opinion of BBC to refute the tiger/lion/leopard relationship but the paper wasn't as conclusive as BBC claimed to be. BigCat82 (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Stupid comment but what does all that DNA stuff mean? Lavinder111 (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015

Please return File:Panthera tigris altaica 13 - Buffalo Zoo.jpg to the reproduction section. It is a featured picture and is of Siberian tigers. We already have too many images of Bengals. 155.138.234.14 (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Wild images are preferred over captive images. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That's irrelevant since the environment still looks like a natural environment. 155.138.246.163 (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Surely it should be done I don't know how to though or else I would!!!! Lavinder111 (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I am confused! The image is included in the article.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree I am really confused as well! That picture is definitely there! I think... Lavinder111 (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2015

 The tiger's closest living relatives were previously though to be the lion...

"though" should be "thought"

The tiger's closest living relatives were previously thought to be the lion Cha Cha Wow (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done--JAaron95 (Talk) 17:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

A few minor problems.

I note the following errors: 1. "A 2010 genetic analysis shows the tiger began evolving 3.2 million years ago..." is risible. The tiger, as well as all other life on this planet, "began evolving" billions of years ago. I'm not clear on the research that this "factoid" is based on, so I don't know what the fossil evidence dated to 3.2 Mya is accepted to be evidence of. Possibilities include a distinctly "tigerish" morphology, a distinctly panthera morphology, or something else. 2. "In 1758, Linnaeus first described the species in his work...". Another laughable statement! Shakespeare used the word "tiger" in Henry V, 1598 C.E., so the idea that it took another 160 years for someone to "describe" them (in Europe, I suppose) is preposterous, imho. I'm no scholar, so I can't be sure that Old Will meant panthera tigris, but I'd guess that since the species was ENDEMIC to eastern Europe, he did. My point here is that certainly there are Asian descriptions of tigers that document the species prior to 1758! So, it is astoundingly provincial to claim "Linnaeus FIRST described...". (and yes, I realize that "systematic, scientific" documentation is (also) noteworthy, but never-the-less.) 3. The section on man-eaters claims "Most man-eating tigers are old, are missing teeth, and are unable to capture their preferred prey." and fails to provide an authoratative source. Miquelle appears to be an authority, BUT this type of claim needs a solid EVIDENTIARY basis, rather than opinion or hearsay. Broken tooth? Old? Meaningless obfuscatory babble. The same section, later on has the statement:"...some healthy tigers have hunted humans." and that some attacks are territorial. You can't have it both ways. I submit that "most" means > 50% and that unless a PEER REVIEWED source is cited, it should be removed. Fact is, people are killed by tigers (healthy and otherwise) for a variety of reasons. The whole sections seems to have been written by an apologist and is NOT npov. Chances are, the major reason attacks happen is habitat loss, but I digress... Given the fact that tigers have been eating people (and vice versa) for millenia, we need to get our facts straight and stop the PETA apologetics. It is diappointing that the authors of this seem to think they are able to "divine" the intent of a tiger. Cats are KNOWN to kill without ANY purpose (tangible purpose, including protecting territory). I submit that claiming the attack on the 8 tourists was "territorial" is magical thinking (so typical of modern "soft science"). Its likely, but to claim it as fact is just wrong. And what does the tigress having 8 cubs have to do with it? I suppose that the attacks IN CAPTIVITY are "territorial" or predatory too? Not. (and don't hand me any of that "oh, but that's different" nonsense.) They kill unprevoked, and prevoked. They kill for food, out of instinct, and out of fear. I'd also be interested in learning where in the world you can find an adult apex predator which has never had "prior contact" with humans. How do you think you could go about proving that, for gosh sakes!?216.96.76.38 (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Animals

lions eat meat and other things like deer or small animals

mating males and females are fully muture at the age of six or eight and when they are ready they can start there season — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.224.164 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015

192.208.157.139 (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Altamel (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

etymology

The specific epithet, tigris, as well as the common name, tiger, come from the Middle English tigre and the Old English tigras (a plural word), both used for the animal. These derive from the Old French tigre, itself a derivative of the Latin word tigris and the Greek word tigris. ...

What, the Linnaean species name is Latinized from the Middle English name, rather than taken from Latin or Greek directly?? — I'd take out any explicit mention of Middle/Old English or Old French and say something more like

The Greek and Latin word tigris, which is used as the specific name in zoological taxonomy and is also the source of the English word tiger, may be derived from ...

—Tamfang (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

How big are they without the tail?

Without knowing how long their tails are, giving a measure from head to tail isn't very helpful to give an idea of how big they are. --186.204.50.67 (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The article states - "Of a tiger's total length, the tail comprises 0.6 to 1.1 m (2.0 to 3.6 ft).[13]". Does this help?__DrChrissy (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reorganised that section slightly to emphasise the aforementioned statement re: tail length. In addition, the Siberian tiger's dimensions as given in the table specifically call out body and tail length as distinct (appropriately I think, as this subspecies represents the extreme end of size comparison). Shoebox2 talk 13:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried editing the tables with seperate columns for "weight", "length with tail" and "length without tail" but the table looked awful so I scrapped it.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess it looked really messy?!?! Lavinder111 (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What does "over curves" mean? It's not immediately clear.

Kortoso (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Tiger. 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://arts.anu.edu.au/grovco/tiger%20SEAsia%20Mazak.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140329231357/http://ebookbrowsee.net/accumulation-of-deleterious-mutations-due-to-inbreeding-in-tiger-population-pdf-d151828925 to http://ebookbrowsee.net/accumulation-of-deleterious-mutations-due-to-inbreeding-in-tiger-population-pdf-d151828925
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/issues/tiger_bioscience_cites.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121101192450/http://www.panthera.org/sites/default/files/Miquelle_Quigley_1996_Food_habits_of_Amur_tigers.pdf to http://www.panthera.org/sites/default/files/Miquelle_Quigley_1996_Food_habits_of_Amur_tigers.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121109124216/http://www.panthera.org/sites/default/files/Rabinowitz_2009_Stop_the_Bleeding_Tiger_Conservation_Protocol.pdf to http://www.panthera.org/sites/default/files/Rabinowitz_2009_Stop_the_Bleeding_Tiger_Conservation_Protocol.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120425070141/http://cimar.org/Arquivo/Press_Releases/CurBio_Antunes_paper2008.pdf to http://cimar.org/Arquivo/Press_Releases/CurBio_Antunes_paper2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 00:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tiger. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100718081839/http://www.iol.co.za:80/index.php?sf=143&set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=nw20080312141948377C153394 to http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=143&set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=nw20080312141948377C153394
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121109123729/http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/11/19/features/is-this-the-last-chance-to-save-the-tiger/215040/ to http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/11/19/features/is-this-the-last-chance-to-save-the-tiger/215040/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 14:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Largest Species?

When I read this I think of it being the species with the most number of extant individuals, or the most diverse species. Nothing could be further from the truth! Surely it should be changed from "largest cat species" to "largest species of cat" This makes it much more clear that the cat itself is what is large, not the species! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.52.205.124 (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2017

Leabh4 (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2017

Man taraneh 99 sal o 500 rozameh (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Soc314: Wikipedia Critique an Article Assignment

Some of the information in the article does not have a source to go with it, and this information is definitely not common sense. Very well worded though! Alexajim (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources on the evolutionary history of the tiger

I noticed that there is very little detail on the evolutionary history of the tiger, particularly on its expansion and contraction of its range after the Middle Pleistocene. As I have perpetual exams at the moment, I am going to leave these sources here to substantiate this article in the future, as this is an essential part of understanding the intriguing biogeographic diversification, distribution and evolutionary success of the tiger. I would be very grateful if anyone with the time could integrate this information into the Taxonomy and Etymology section.

• Biogeographical change in the tiger Panthera_tigris (Kitchener & Dugmore, 2000)

• Predicted Pleistocene–Holocene range shifts of the tiger (Panthera tigris) (Cooper et al, 2016)

• Planning tiger recovery: Understanding intraspecific variation for effective conservation (Wilting et al, 2015)

• Mitochondrial Phylogeography Illuminates the Origin of the Extinct Caspian Tiger and Its Relationship to the Amur Tiger (Driscoll et al, 2009)

• The Last Wild Tigers (Matthiessen, 2014)

• http://www.paleobiodb.org/classic/displayReference?reference_no=34644

SuperTah (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll add to that list (and annotate yours above):

• A taxonomic revision of the tigers (Panthera tigris) of Southeast Asia (Mazak & Groves, 2006. This a study of the island tiger subspecies and proposes to separate tigers into three distinct species based on the Phylogenetic Species Concept. The principle author (Mazak) wrote the ASM Mammalian Species guide for the tiger. The proposal hasn't been followed but is similar to the proposals to reduce the subspecies to two and the article discusses the geographic isolation.
• Phylogeography and Genetic Ancestry of Tigers (Panthera tigris) (Luo et al, 2004) - Mt-DNA analysis suggests common ancestor of modern tigers around 75kya. Discusses possibility of Toba eruption and retreat to refugium in south China.

It's a good idea for the article, but like you I haven't the time to do the subject justice. I'll think about an incremental approach, starting with a mention of the bottleneck and the Toba volcano, with subsequent expansion from a refugium, and the effects of the LGM. Jts1882 (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

What about this assertion: The Caspian Tiger,(Panthera tigris virgata) genetic roots span over a million years. A nearly cataclysmic event during the late Pleistocene Era, some 10,000 to 12,000 years ago nearly wiped out all tigers. Fortunately, a small remnant of tigers survived. In 2004 scientists revised the known classification to five tiger subspecies from eight previously identified.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2009-01-caspian-tiger-extinct-siberian.html#jCp

Is confirmed that tiger went almost extinct 12,000 years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that source is accurate. My understanding is that the tiger lineage overall goes back more than a million years (see Wilting et al 2015 for references). Then around 75,000 years ago the Toba supereruption caused a global winter and this had a catastrophic effect on tiger populations, reducing them to a refugium in southern China (see Luo et al 2004, Wilting et al, 2015 ), from which the modern tigers expanded and differentiated into subspecies. This refugium explains the basal position of the South Chinese tiger (P. tigris amoyensis) in Mt-DNA analysis. Later, the LCM (10-20kya?) cause a retreat from northern Asia. Afterwards (ca 10kya) the ancestors of the Siberian and Caspian tigers migrated back into the vacated northern areas, either by the Gansu-silk road route (Driscoll et al 2009) or via northern China (Cooper et al, 2016).

The proposed subspecies revision is to two: continental and Sunda (see Wilting et al 2005). The two populations became after the LGM (see discussion in Cooper et al 2016). The eight to five revision refers to extant subspecies as unfortunately three are extinct. Jts1882 (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2017

Under Proposed reclassification of subspecies, in the last sentence of the second paragraph, "five additional extinct sub-species" should be changed to "three additional extinct subspecies". There are only three tiger subspecies that have gone extinct in recent times, and sub-species is not a proper term. TupanJara (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tiger. 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/20121109123727/http://300pearls.naturalis.nl/dossiers/dossier.asp?xmlfile=N019.xml to http://300pearls.naturalis.nl/dossiers/dossier.asp?xmlfile=N019.xml

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

After checking both the original link, and the archived link, neither worked properly, so I removed the cite. No worries as the cross-link to the well documented Trinil-tiger article should be enough here.

Thanks,

Warrenfrank (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)